Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    Like I said. If you are in recipt of JSA (tax payers money) you should lead the most basic of lifes.
    You do. It's about £50 a week.

    (Original post by dj1015)
    I don't understand why people should live in luxury at the expense of others....
    In what fantasy world can you live a life of luxury on £2600 a year?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    Some people have to pay excess rent. Then there's a phone line, internet, (how else can you search and apply for jobs) they may need money for clothes for interview, travel for interviews, etc.

    That might be your budget; but it's not going to be the same for everyone else.

    When I was at uni, I happily lived on £30 a week. Doesn't mean everyone else can. :rolleyes:
    You're quite correct, it depends on someone's situation.. But paying excess rent isn't one of them! People know the LHA rates, if they live in somewhere that costs more that's their choice but they can't winger when they're short of money!

    If you live with parents then I'd day you'd get by on £25pw if that, a lot still don't even pay for their food! Own place and you need £71. Room in a house £56 is fine. It's done on age which is the unfair part.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    You do. It's about £50 a week.



    In what fantasy world can you live a life of luxury on £2600 a year?
    You can't, it's not the lower JSA amount that's a problem. That allows you to just get by. Unless your family are feeding the person in which case they're idiots!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    As I understand it, only under very limited circumstances.
    I see. During my stint on jobseekers, they seemed to be fairly generous with things like that - paying for transport to all the interviews I went to as well as offering to pay for any clothes I would have needed for them.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey81)
    You're quite correct, it depends on someone's situation.. But paying excess rent isn't one of them! People know the LHA rates, if they live in somewhere that costs more that's their choice but they can't winger when they're short of money!
    But there's hardly anywhere which LHA will actually cover fully. Hence, people having to use their benefits to cover the shortfall.

    I was looking a few days ago for somewhere to live. Nowhere covers the maximum LHA rate in my area.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I agree. And the benefits bill being reduced where it can to address our mammoth budget deficit is not a "punishment".



    Again, you've been going on about people who apparently are being called "lazy". Do you now think we evil people who are not left-wing believe people in work on low incomes are lazy too? Because I assumed you were only suggesting we branded the unemployed that way.



    You have no idea what my circumstances are. I have no wish to screw any worker, or indeed to make rich people earn any more unless they deserve it. It's a ridiculous caricature you've invented in your head.

    I genuinely want to see the worst off in our society in jobs and participating as functioning members of society. Why wouldn't I? I want to see their children get a good education and be taught the value of hard-work and helping their community. Again, why wouldn't I? The better off they are, the better off our country as a whole is and, indeed, the better off I am.
    well it is reducing the already tiny benefits for the unemployed and disabled is a horrific idea and many low earners cannot survive without help, perhaps if employers paid fair wages we wouldnt have a problem?

    the unemployed are branded as lazy, despite there being no where near enough jobs to go around

    i doubt that you seem pretty determined to screw workers. i suppose we should remove all working time and conditions legislation and remove all workers rights should we too?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    Your student name gives the idea you're a student, yes?

    That might be part of the issue. Most likely about 70% of student have no idea about how real life works or how hard it is to survive. Therefore the only thing they care about is getting things as cheap as possible and taxing those that get a lot of money; because they get a lot of money. No other reason.

    An excellent post was made above about Thatcher. She did what needed to be done, not necessarily what people wanted to be done. She saved the country millions, if not billion by shutting industries that just wern't profitable anymore and had no benefit in staying open. If a business doesn't make a profit it closes. That's what Thatcher did and she was right to.

    People will keep voting Labour because they give people what they want not necessarily what they need. This is the issue that I will always have with Labour. They cave to easily. In the 80's when Thatcher shut the mines the unions went crazy. The same unions that had driven the mines to the point that they weren't profitable due to the demands that were being leveled. Heaven forbid the miners had to do a bit of work. Labour will always give people what they want. They will get elected in again, and if I'm honest, at the next election Labour will win. I have no doubt of that. Then the same pattern will develop again. Labour will give people whatever they want, bankrupt the country again, increase the welfare budget, the north will become an even bigger ****hole then it currently is, and the tories will get back in power to make the cuts that need to be made due to Labours overspending.

    This is a student forum. A lot of students need to open their eyes and realise that they can't always get what they want, that sacrifices need to be made and that cuts need to be made. So instead of crying and winging, do some god damn work and grow some balls. The same goes for the benefit scrounging thieves in the North that are the absolute bane of this country.
    From your use of paragraphs and grammar one might expect that you have something reasonable to say... Shame. I particularly enjoyed your use of statistics, is the number 70 your favourite?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    well it is reducing the already tiny benefits for the unemployed and disabled is a horrific idea and many low earners cannot survive without help, perhaps if employers paid fair wages we wouldnt have a problem?
    I think it's quite absurd that someone can work a full-time job that doesn't pay enough to live a reasonable standard of life on. It is possibly an employer's most basic duty to an employee. But of course many people in work who are receiving benefits are not full-time workers.

    Benefits for the unemployed are going up, as they have every year. ESA too will go up for people who are out of work and deemed unable to go into employment. More is being spent on Disability Living Allowance/the Personal Independence Payment in future years, but it is being directed in different ways: the most needy will be put on a higher level, whilst those with less additional needs will be on a lower level. Some will get more, some less.

    I'd hardly call that "horrific".

    the unemployed are branded as lazy, despite there being no where near enough jobs to go around
    The number of jobs is not static. Preparing people for work and putting more into work can increase the number of jobs.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    I see. During my stint on jobseekers, they seemed to be fairly generous with things like that - paying for transport to all the interviews I went to as well as offering to pay for any clothes I would have needed for them.
    I think any travel to interviews within your expected commuting distance (which is 60 minutes or 90 minutes depending on how long you've been claiming etc) doesn't get any chance of being reimbursed now.

    As a discretionary payment, clothes are probably on the basis of if you ask for it, or if you clearly need them. If you were relatively well turned-out at the Jobcentre I can't see them being offered... which is perhaps a bit discriminatory!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I think any travel to interviews within your expected commuting distance (which is 60 minutes or 90 minutes depending on how long you've been claiming etc) doesn't get any chance of being reimbursed now.
    I know this point isn't really related to this thread, so I won't push it. Much. However just for general discussion, I had interviews in London and one in St Albans, both of which within commuting distance (London is 30 mins and St Albans is about an hour.)

    Both were paid for - I didn't even ask, they just offered it to me. :confused:
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)

    Benefits for the unemployed are going up, as they have every year. ESA too will go up for people who are out of work and deemed unable to go into employment. More is being spent on Disability Living Allowance/the Personal Independence Payment in future years, but it is being directed in different ways: the most needy will be put on a higher level, whilst those with less additional needs will be on a lower level. Some will get more, some less.
    Out of work benefits are going up 1% this year. In real terms, that's a cut.

    Unfortunately, your comment about the most needy getting put on a higher level isn't quite correct. I have a friend whose sister has a fainting disorder and she requires supervision to ensure she stays safe. Under DLA, she gets mid care and low rate mobility. Under PIP, she won't get anything for care; as they missed supervision out completely in the criteria. Yet, her needs are just as valid as they were when she started getting DLA.

    The way PIP is done means that you're going to have some people who need care 24/7 getting less than someone who needs care a few hours a day. Yet, the person who needs care 24/7 is more needy.

    PIP seems to be aimed at people with certain disabilities. Not really anything for those of us with developmental disorders / learning disabilities.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    A country is made up by the people that occupy it. Therefor the debt that country has is a debt on its people. Thus a personnal debt.

    Or a negative number in one place means the same as a negative number in another place.
    ah so when it comes to debt it appears you're something of a socialist. Privatise profits, publicise loses woo!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EwanHarvey)
    From your use of paragraphs and grammar one might expect that you have something reasonable to say... Shame. I particularly enjoyed your use of statistics, is the number 70 your favourite?
    You obviously presented a well structured response then. Pillock.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I think it's quite absurd that someone can work a full-time job that doesn't pay enough to live a reasonable standard of life on. It is possibly an employer's most basic duty to an employee. But of course many people in work who are receiving benefits are not full-time workers.

    Benefits for the unemployed are going up, as they have every year. ESA too will go up for people who are out of work and deemed unable to go into employment. More is being spent on Disability Living Allowance/the Personal Independence Payment in future years, but it is being directed in different ways: the most needy will be put on a higher level, whilst those with less additional needs will be on a lower level. Some will get more, some less.

    I'd hardly call that "horrific".



    The number of jobs is not static. Preparing people for work and putting more into work can increase the number of jobs.
    if you think PIP is a good idea you clearly dont know any disabled people.

    yes in reality benefits are going up, even if not enough, but the whole point of this thread is op wants to hugely slash benefits and remove them altogether in the end, so why you you trying to drag me off topic and discuss what is actually occurring?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    if you think PIP is a good idea you clearly dont know any disabled people.
    Indeed. Whilst many disabled people aren't against reforming DLA to reflect modern life, (DLA is 21 years old) the changes are aimed at kicking half a million people off. It's been said from the start that the aim is to kick half a million off. Nothing about helping those most in need - it's about saving money.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    All this talk about "scroungers" really misses the point. There is a genuine need for welfare, the vast majority of claimants are genuine, most on JSA are looking for work and many on housing benefits are in employment.

    Now that's over and done with let's get to the crux of the issue. It is not a question of whether there is genuine and reasonable demand for public money in this area. There is an infinite demand for public money and a limited supply. The question is whether a particular pot of money can be put to better use elsewhere. If (most) benefits are kept at a 1% rise for 3 years as opposed to more, what other cuts will we avoid? What tax rises won't happen? The government has a lot of roles and responsibilities and a limited supply of money with which to pay for it and public spending is based around this reality.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    Indeed. Whilst many disabled people aren't against reforming DLA to reflect modern life, (DLA is 21 years old) the changes are aimed at kicking half a million people off. It's been said from the start that the aim is to kick half a million off. Nothing about helping those most in need - it's about saving money.
    That's pretty much what every change to benefit has been about. The change from Incapacity Benefit to ESA was designed to take loads of people off the benefit altogether - or moved onto JSA.

    Very rarely is it genuinely about "making the system fairer".
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    That's pretty much what every change to benefit has been about. The change from Incapacity Benefit to ESA was designed to take loads of people off the benefit altogether - or moved onto JSA.

    Very rarely is it genuinely about "making the system fairer".
    Indeed. They talk about fraud - disability benefit fraud is the lowest fraud compared to other benefits.

    They moan about people being on DLA for years and not being reassessed. Like many others, I have incurable disabilities. What's the point in reassessing me when I won't (been told this by every specialist since I was at least 7) change?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Looks like all the dole lovers on this thread got a kick in the nads tonight.

    The first very small steps towards minimising the welfare state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    Looks like all the dole lovers on this thread got a kick in the nads tonight.

    The first very small steps towards minimising the welfare state.
    Not really, those that depend on it to survive maybe but me personally no.


    Posted from TSR Mobilek
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.