Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lumberjack 101)
    Went on to entitled-to a couple of years ago out of curiosity. Put all my details in but changed myself to an unemployed female with 2 kids under 5. Turns out I was entitled to £350/week in cash. Not bad when I was only earning £370/week after tax. Given I had to run a car and pay for work clothes etc from this I can honestly say if I was a woman I wouldn`t have bothered going to college, just got a couple of TSR`s resident alpha males to knock me up and enjoy spending time watching my kids grow up while being better off than someone working in a skilled job.
    And did you then budget for raising two kids under 5? Because £1400 a month to raise a family is not exactly living in the lap of luxury.

    Edit: The real complaint here seems not to be that benefits are too high, but that wages are too low.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    So would it be fair to say that they fill a gap caused by cash flow problems?
    Cash flow problems which are entirely caused by the state reneging on its responsibility to give them the benefits they are entitled to by law. You make it sound like they just couldn't be bothered to go down that week and pick up the cheque.

    Sanctions are worse than it would have been just cutting headline rates of benefits. The disruption they cause is so destructive to people's lives and it is naked cruelty. Imagine if your boss suddenly decided he didn't feel like paying you anything for the next six weeks (and you're not allowed to use your savings, the poor don't have any).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ManifoldManifest)
    And did you then budget for raising two kids under 5? Because £1400 a month to raise a family is not exactly living in the lap of luxury.
    Yep. My bills were £400 month in rent, £150 in electricity, £60 council tax, £30 internet/phone. Still left £200 every week for food and clothing. If you cant feed and clothe 1 adult and 2 kids on that then there is something seriously wrong with your domestic skills.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lumberjack 101)
    Went on to entitled-to a couple of years ago out of curiosity. Put all my details in but changed myself to an unemployed female with 2 kids under 5. Turns out I was entitled to £350/week in cash. Not bad when I was only earning £370/week after tax. Given I had to run a car and pay for work clothes etc from this I can honestly say if I was a woman I wouldn`t have bothered going to college, just got a couple of TSR`s resident alpha males to knock me up and enjoy spending time watching my kids grow up while being better off than someone working in a skilled job.
    It is just astounding that people would see this sort of situation and conclude that it's the benefit recipients being paid too much. WHY IS YOUR EMPLOYER NOT PAYING YOU A DECENT WAGE should be the first question that comes to mind.

    But no, people like you insist that just because you're being exploited everyone else should bloody well be miserable too.

    There is a real issue with child benefits however which even I, a committed champagne socialist, think needs a serious rethink. That doesn't mean I'm going to come on the Internet and start ranting on and on about cigarettes and Sky TV. It really has been a dismal showing from the right-wing cheerleaders on this thread today. Not a scrap of empathy to be seen of course.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    It is just astounding that people would see this sort of situation and conclude that it's the benefit recipients being paid too much. WHY IS YOUR EMPLOYER NOT PAYING YOU A DECENT WAGE should be the first question that comes to mind.

    But no, people like you insist that just because you're being exploited everyone else should bloody well be miserable too.

    There is a real issue with child benefits however which even I, a committed champagne socialist, think needs a serious rethink. That doesn't mean I'm going to come on the Internet and start ranting on and on about cigarettes and Sky TV. It really has been a dismal showing from the right-wing cheerleaders on this thread today. Not a scrap of empathy to be seen of course.
    £25k is not a decent wage? What planet are you living on?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ManifoldManifest)
    Cool, and what shall we do about the people who would like to work but can't because there are more unemployed than vacancies? Or the underemployed who have jobs that don't provide enough to live on and have to supplement their income with in work benefits?

    Also, can you find some of these people on benefits who have such an unacceptably high standard of living? I'd like to see how they manage that, and what portion of benefit expenditure they account for.
    I wouldn't hold your breath, we've been spending all day trying to squeeze some actual figures and evidence out of these miserable right-wing *****. They just keep bleating on and on about cigarettes and Sky TV and saying "I see these people every day in the streets"
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billyfisher100)
    I think reducing the amount of expenditure on our overinflated welfare system is not a bad idea - I don't know why the title of this is "Shame of Condem Cuts". We spend over 62 billion annually on welfare and many benefit recipients will have a better standard of living than those who are actually working and earning a low income. Welfare should only be for the truly vulnerable in our society: the terminally ill, the disabled and children - and, if you cannot afford it, don't have children!

    Child poverty is still an issue in Britain (although it shouldn't be) and we need to ensure that every child has a proper education, food and shelter. Invest in education, not in welfare for people who are perfectly able to work but cannot be bothered and see benefits as a better lifestyle.
    Oh good idea. Reduce "child poverty" by giving feckless parents even more benefits. They are already enjoying some of the best standards of living in the country (rich excluded obviously).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Old_Simon)
    Oh good idea. Reduce "child poverty" by giving feckless parents even more benefits. They are already enjoying some of the best standards of living in the country (rich excluded obviously).
    Would you like to offer up some evidence of that?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    Food banks are wrongly thought as a measure of absolute poverty. There are now just part the welfare system, previously people would ask there family and friends for help but now the state is here to help instead often reducing the need for community.
    Britain is not returning to some Dickensian society where people had to steal or beg for survival. If this was the case, why are there always reports how apparently more children are becoming overweight?

    There is absolute poverty in Britain but it is not as common as many think, the best response is to increase productivity and employment.
    Because obesity has nothing necessarily to do with the amount of food you eat. Obesity is caused by eating fat and sugar together thus causing insulin spikes. If you eat six small meals a day, you are likely to stay slim. If you eat three meals you could gain weight. If you eat three meals of fat and sugar you will very likely gain weight. If you eat infrequently you won't lose weight but keep wait on, because the body stores fat as a survival mechanism. Children are becoming over weight, not because of the amount of food they eat but because of what goes in the food they eat (i.e., combinations of sugar and fat). So it is possible to eat very little or eat infrequently but still gain weight. In fact, the secret to losing weight is to eat more food, but also eat the right kind of food.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I made a similar thread here, only to be surrounded by a sea of right wingers.
    How come you got a much more positive reception than me:K:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lumberjack 101)
    £25k is not a decent wage? What planet are you living on?
    I quite agree, again you seem incapable of reading on to the last paragraph of my posts. Child benefit is grossly overestimated and needs serious reform. There's a reason why the government pays thousands of pounds in child tax credits and child benefit though. They need those women to produce the low-wage workers of the future. They are providing a vital economic service for the slavedrivers by pumping out kids into an inauspicious background.

    Also you will note entitled-to allows you to calculate how much better off you would be in work. Your single mother would earn an extra 6000 a year by going to work full time and her childcare costs would all be covered in this scenario. Again the fact that she is receiving as much in tax credits as wages shows how stingy employers are. More people than you think receive benefits. There might even be one next door, God forbid.

    I don’t quite trust this calculator though, seems suspiciously generous compared to HMRC's one that I've used before.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I quite agree, again you seem incapable of reading on to the last paragraph of my posts. Child benefit is grossly overestimated and needs serious reform. There's a reason why the government pays thousands of pounds in child tax credits and child benefit though. They need those women to produce the low-wage workers of the future. They are providing a vital economic service for the slavedrivers by pumping out kids into an inauspicious background.

    Also you will note entitled-to allows you to calculate how much better off you would be in work. Your single mother would earn an extra 6000 a year by going to work full time and her childcare costs would all be covered in this scenario. Again the fact that she is receiving as much in tax credits as wages shows how stingy employers are. More people than you think receive benefits. There might even be one next door, God forbid.

    I don’t quite trust this calculator though, seems suspiciously generous compared to HMRC's one that I've used before.
    Don`t remember seeing that, but it was 3(?) years ago when I did it. It just did my absolute box in at the time that I had to get up every day and put in a hard shift for £20/week more than someone who had the luxury of spending their day with their kids. Guess I know my place in the economic hierarchy now!

    And I know how many people get benefits - just about everyone I know gets some for of state handout. In fact I think i`m the only one who doesn`t. Had a brief spell of unemployment last year before starting uni so went to sign on for the very first time. Turns out that because I put some of my wages in the bank over the years, and the fact I was in the TA (but not doing many days) I was entitled to a whopping £8 per fortnight. Kind of makes me wonder why I bothered.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Not something I care about don't see why I have to care and most certainly won't fall into a left-wing trap.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Look mate, what are you proposing to do? Have every benefit claimant scan his shopping receipts and send them in every week? Issue a ridiculous card system to shame them in public and make it easier to stop benefits due to "technical errors"? These things would be phenomenally expensive and serve only one purpose: to marginalise the poor even further. But people like you seem to get a kick out of that, the Tories have certainly spared no expense during this parliament, they have squandered billions and billions on Universal Credit without ever once consulting the public (the Treasury is not liable for most benefit spending), millions on employing Atos to kill off 10,000 disabled people (2012; they don't release figures any more) and more billions on hastening the arrival of the slave labour economy with the Work Programme.

    Tories kill and enslave. They do it every time we let them into power. And people like you swallow the propaganda and cheer slogans about fast food and cigarettes from the sidelines. Well as far as I'm concerned you can get out of my country.
    Yes actually, I think that or the issuing of rations/ food vouchers would be a very good idea. Tories do not kill or enslave, that's labour and the Iraq war. And it is not "your" country and I don't swallow propaganda anymore than you do.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Look mate, what are you proposing to do? Have every benefit claimant scan his shopping receipts and send them in every week? Issue a ridiculous card system to shame them in public and make it easier to stop benefits due to "technical errors"? These things would be phenomenally expensive and serve only one purpose: to marginalise the poor even further. But people like you seem to get a kick out of that, the Tories have certainly spared no expense during this parliament, they have squandered billions and billions on Universal Credit without ever once consulting the public (the Treasury is not liable for most benefit spending), millions on employing Atos to kill off 10,000 disabled people (2012; they don't release figures any more) and more billions on hastening the arrival of the slave labour economy with the Work Programme.

    Tories kill and enslave. They do it every time we let them into power. And people like you swallow the propaganda and cheer slogans about fast food and cigarettes from the sidelines. Well as far as I'm concerned you can get out of my country.

    Out of interest, what sort of social security system would you like? I was assuming a more Scandinavian model (Sweden, Norway etc), but then as I read your post even their relative generosity would probably not be enough to satisfy you, especially their much stricter controls, ironically the receipts for shopping being in place in one system, the country escapes me but a Scandinavian girl on my course was explaining it to me at one point on the issue of avoiding people spending money on booze/**** as folks complain about here. Then you have the fact your previous tax contributes are an important factor in deciding benefits (unless you literally could not work) and when the state finds you a job, you take it, there's no "well I don't really like that..". Just how good do you want life to be on long term unemployment benefit? It is already economically more sensible for a single mother to chose not to work, too much more and people will simply not bother to be net contributors to society if they can have a reasonable standard of living by doing nothing...and then everything will collapse.

    I don't like a lot of the Tory cuts and I'm not a Tory supporter (not that Labour is smart choice either), but just wondering what you're after really.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ManifoldManifest)
    Cool, and what shall we do about the people who would like to work but can't because there are more unemployed than vacancies? Or the underemployed who have jobs that don't provide enough to live on and have to supplement their income with in work benefits?

    Also, can you find some of these people on benefits who have such an unacceptably high standard of living? I'd like to see how they manage that, and what portion of benefit expenditure they account for.
    Well were now in record a period of record employement. The economies bouncing back so they'll be more jobs to choose from .
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lumberjack 101)
    Don`t remember seeing that, but it was 3(?) years ago when I did it. It just did my absolute box in at the time that I had to get up every day and put in a hard shift for £20/week more than someone who had the luxury of spending their day with their kids. Guess I know my place in the economic hierarchy now!

    And I know how many people get benefits - just about everyone I know gets some for of state handout. In fact I think i`m the only one who doesn`t. Had a brief spell of unemployment last year before starting uni so went to sign on for the very first time. Turns out that because I put some of my wages in the bank over the years, and the fact I was in the TA (but not doing many days) I was entitled to a whopping £8 per fortnight. Kind of makes me wonder why I bothered.
    You had over £8,000 in savings ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey11223)
    Out of interest, what sort of social security system would you like? I was assuming a more Scandinavian model (Sweden, Norway etc), but then as I read your post even their relative generosity would probably not be enough to satisfy you, especially their much stricter controls, ironically the receipts for shopping being in place in one system, the country escapes me but a Scandinavian girl on my course was explaining it to me at one point on the issue of avoiding people spending money on booze/**** as folks complain about here. Then you have the fact your previous tax contributes are an important factor in deciding benefits (unless you literally could not work) and when the state finds you a job, you take it, there's no "well I don't really like that..". Just how good do you want life to be on long term unemployment benefit? It is already economically more sensible for a single mother to chose not to work, too much more and people will simply not bother to be net contributors to society if they can have a reasonable standard of living by doing nothing...and then everything will collapse.

    I don't like a lot of the Tory cuts and I'm not a Tory supporter (not that Labour is smart choice either), but just wondering what you're after really.
    People often gloss over the realities of the scandinavian system just to make a point, especially the part where you can`t claim anything in Sweden until you`ve paid in for at least 1 year.......
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Old_Simon)
    You had over £8,000 in savings ?
    Several times that, yes. I was still entitled to contribution-based JSA based on my previous NI contributions, but they deducted my T.A pay from it even though it`s not a regular salary (only 4 times a year) and so left me with the £8. Told them to stuff it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lumberjack 101)
    Several times that, yes. I was still entitled to contribution-based JSA based on my previous NI contributions, but they deducted my T.A pay from it even though it`s not a regular salary (only 4 times a year) and so left me with the £8. Told them to stuff it.
    Ok. You had "several times" 8k in savings and a regular income from the TA. What should the tax payer have given you ? Did you apply for housing benefit ?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 20, 2014
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.