Why Can't People Manage On £500 Per Week?

[magsmay]

So - the Cap on Benefits will commence, along with a chorus of moaning minnies who say they can't possibly manage and will have to cut down on food and heating -so bloody what!!! If two working people had the misfortune of one of them losing their job they would have to cut down until things got better - your weekly cheque is a benefit For Funks Sake not a wage - Some WORKING couples barely clear £500 after off takes -this makes my blood boil -people these days are like spoilt children when they get their sweeties taken away - Quote from one moaning minnie this a.m. on TV '' I've tried to get work in the past but for me its not an option'' -then suck it up madam- if you want the State to provide for you then cut down and budget like the working families have to.

[MadMen]

Mags, yep, totally get what you're saying but I think you're looking at it all in a very simplistic way.
It's easy to say they should just "deal with it" but when it comes to not being able to pay a mortgage and being faced with possibly losing your home, it's just not that black and white.

[magsmay]

Em10 -I am not saying £500 is too much to live on - I wish people would read OP before commenting! I'm saying people should stop moaning about receiving less money and pull in their belts!

[emmie]

Gromit, see the economics of what you are suggesting, if have many small to medium size businesses, green grocers, medium sized factories, butchers and you determine that the minimum wage will be 15 quid an hour, what do you honestly think will happen, if that business can't afford it, and folds, or gets rid of some staff. so someone is out of work, or all, dependent on what type of business. Some have to be realistic about minimum wage, if a florist has 4 staff and they have to pay double the current minimum wage they are going to get shot of two of the staff to make up the shortfall. I really don't see how you can't see that.

[jim360]

Also, as has been pointed out, that £500 a week will disappear very quickly and usually on rent or housing. Leaving people with certainly a lot less to cover food, gas, electricity, clothes, etc. If it were a lump sum after rent then it would be far too much, but it's not so it isn't always.

[MadMen]

Good point, Jim.
£500 a week to include rent is actually not a lot at all.
£500 a week exclusive of rent (which is what I thought it was) is ludicrous!

[magsmay]

MadMen - If you lose your job and have a mortgage housing benefit pays the Interest which would prevent you from losing your home as Mortgage Companies are willing to give sabbaticals on payments under these circumstances. Life does sometimes throw up challenges but should be no harder financially for someone working or on benefits. Must go now - one of my sheep has just had twins x

[emmie]

i read through the whole post, and getting huffy isn't helping. Some already do tighten their belts and most i know don't get anywhere near the benefits quoted, and they have been tax payers all their lives. I know two elderly women who lost their husbands through cancer, both get a small pension, but just over the limit according to the government of what one is allowed, so they get no help whatsoever. No free dentistry, prescriptions, and so on.

[jackthehat]

Where are these 'people' receiving £500 per week to live on?

The majority of that they will never actually have 'in their' hand. It is transferred from department to department as a 'credit' against their name, or forwarded directly (usually) to their Landlord.

[sue11]

I wonder if as a whole, the country is being too easy on people by providing benefits for various things. There does now seem to be some kind of expectation that benefits should give everyone who receives it a decent standard of living. In reality they were supposed to have been a short term safety net for people to move on from quickly once they are back on their feet again.
I agree with jim360 who states that some people are in this position through no fault of their own, but this still does not mean that the state has to support them regardless.
I know that some will think I am taking a very harsh view on things, but are we actually helping the nation by providing such a long term safety net?
Perhaps benefits should be cut to provide only the barest sustenance? Would this make families come together more to help out those members that needed it and would it encourage people to start to plan ahead and be more committed to finding work?
Perhaps not, or perhaps we could be surprised by the resilience and strength of people that realise they have to start to make it under their own steam?
Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution being the survival of the fittest. By providing such help to the needy members of our society, are we now ensuring the survival of the weakest, condemning the nation to a every increasing cycle of cost could only get worse and worse as the years go on?
As I said I have stated some very harsh views and appreciate that lots will disagree with me!
By the way, I have been unemployed twice in my life and each time I have found work pretty quickly by being prepared to take any job rather than be on benefits. But I do appreciate that it is very difficult for some.

[MadMen]

Thanks for explaining that Mags. I actually have no idea when it comes to housing benefit and mortgages.

Twin lambs? Wow!

Can I come and live on your farm please... :-)

[pastafreak]

This site may be of interest to some...it's the Joseph Rowntree Foudation..http://www.jrf.org.uk/about-us

they look for ways to help people out of poverty,it's causes and equitable solutions.

They've done numerous surveys/research into what is a sensible livable income for most people...it's something to think about.

Quote-

According to what people said, in order to maintain a minimum, *socially acceptable quality of life* in April 2012:

a single working-age adult needs a budget of £193 per week;
a pensioner couple needs £232;
a couple with two children needs £455; and
a lone parent with one child needs £276;

These amounts are *after income tax, and do not include housing or childcare costs*. Most people relying on basic out-of-work benefits do not reach this standard. A single adult, working full time, needs to earn £8.38 an hour to reach this weekly standard. For almost all household types considered in this study, the minimum income standard is above the threshold used to measure relative poverty.

[emmie]

sue wrong, the only way to make it fair is to stop all benefits, then stop any deductions from wages, and let people spend what they earn.

[jim360]

Congratulations to the sheep.

There are people who are very good at budgeting, and even they can get caught out. While not on benefits, my parents are still good at budgeting, but several years back things just went horribly wrong. The fridge and washing machine both broke at once, at a time when they were even more expensive than they are now, and very possibly the car broke down too (though I might be exaggerating). All of their savings vanished virtually overnight. Very possibly if one or two other things had gone wrong at the same time they'd have landed in debt - or perhaps they even did. And these are people with a job. Imagine the effect if something similar goes wrong on people on benefits and nowhere to fall back on.

An effective £90 per week cut, as some people are getting, can be a huge change to budget for. And there is always the risk of the unexpected.

[emmie]

it is a radical notion, and one strangely no ever thinks could work, and perhaps it couldn't. But it would put an end to all who think or know in some cases some getting a free ride. Work for a living, support yourself, and keep your wages to spend as you see fit. Health care, care homes, and all sorts would have to be paid for, but at least that way you have the choice.

[Purple_Popple]

Sharinghan how come you are not in school?

[jim360]

An interesting thought sue but I think it's overlooking the sad fact that most people are selfish, so the result would just be that more people end up in poverty rather than less.

[LazyGun]

I think you might be suggesting the concept of "social darwinism", Sue. and people and philsophers have toyed with the idea, made their own proposals since the late 1800s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Its is arguable a distorted view of Darwins actual theory of evolution in the first place.and does not lend itself readily to the ideas of a social community. It is also tainted by association with Nazism.

Not sure I would want to be a part of a society that ran on a philosophy of "Devil take the hindmost" or "I'm all right Jack".

[pastafreak]

Sharingan is home schooled if I am not mistaken.

[Purple_Popple]

I see Pasta.. Thanks. I can never tell if it is Sharinghan or Nox posting to be honest.

[emmie]

jim, most people are selfish, whilst i agree that some are, i don't necessarily agree with most. Millions give to charity, hundreds of thousands do work for charities, do fun runs, marathons, not to mention young children who care for parents, who are disabled, mentally ill, and vis versa, I could go on, but i reckon you get the picture.