Originally Posted by Victor Meldrew

Ok, I'm up and had my coffee, it's the weekend and I am firmly back in 'Grumpy old Men' mode (it's what I do best!).

I have enjoyed the 'Nanny State Britain' thread and thought I woujld go another step with this one.

The UK Welfare State was initially put into place in order for the majority to help look after the minority who, through no fault of their own, needed financial and other assistance to help them lead, at least, a reasonable existence.

Fair do's

Now I know (at least I think I do) that on the whole being on benefits does not give you a lavish and luxurious lifestyle.

I also (think I) know that there are many (maybe a majority of?) people who would rather not be on benefits, and that there are many problems with being on benefits, including the effects it has on ones morale. This rant is not aimed at such people

Is it me, or does it now seem that the whole thing has got out of hand.

There seem to be a section of people, even 2nd generation now living their whole life on benefits by choice as it is easier than working.

I know of at least one family whose father (unmarried, in his late fifties) has never worked since the 1970's (well not legally) and has his house, his car and his income provided for by the taxpayer. His daughter, a single mother, has a flat, furniture and income paid for her. His Mum has not worked since her late 40's and bought her council house with the benefits she was given. Her house is now worth around £125k and she never paid a penny for it.

On the other hand, if you work hard to earn a crust, buy your own house, and provide your own savings for your retirement, as well as paying your own pension fund, unless this is all used up, you cannot claim a thing.

Doesn't seem fair and right to me. Or am I seeing it wrong?

Rant over.

What do you think?

Originally Posted by Easterndawn

I have read this thread and cannot understand how anyone can save money or even make the ends meet. I am a single woman who is trying desperately to find a job, although I am a educated person with a University degree and send out 10 to 15 CV's per week, have my CV with many employment agencies, willing to take any job, unfortunately because I have been diagnosed with arthritis in my knees, hips and ankles and cannot take a position that would mean that I had to spend many hours on my feet. I receive £65.00 per week for housing benefit, and £58.00 per week for Jobseekers benefit. From that I pay $90.00 per week for rent. £28.00 for broadband and mobile phone per month, £16.00 per month for prescriptions and the rest is to be used for groceries and bus fare when going to jobcentre and looking for work. I do not smoke, go the pub (not that I wouldn't like to go for a glass of wine once and a while) or gamble I have had to sell some my jewellery to make the ends meet and even then it is difficult.

So tell me how do they do it? For I cannnot understand

Originally Posted by Pomster

Years ago I used to work for Social Security and there were already many generations of "non-workers" with no plans to work. The family names which made us all groan. This was in a run down part of an otherwise wealthy area with plenty of work around.

We all knew of them and their many cash in hand jobs, but trying to prove it was hard. Even now when people get caught, they rarely pay back- so why committ fraud?- errr.... because you get away with it?

Originally Posted by dunroving

If you are on benefits, you shouldn't be paying for prescriptions ... and even people earning a wage can buy a 3-month prescription certificate for £13 (or £38 for a 12-month one, in Scotland) that covers all prescriptions for free ... your chemist should have told you this by now. Ask them next time you are there and you'll save yourself some cash:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/M...sts/DH_4049383 (certificate details)

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publicati.../01/30125542/7 (exemptions)

- of course in Wales they are free for everyone.

Originally Posted by BristolUK

To an extent it's already there. There is a disregard on earnings. Not sure how much it is now. It was never that much, although it was more generous for lone parents.

But it's more beneficial if you can earn enough to take yourself off JSA. You could still get housing benefit, keeping pretty much a third of everything extra at that point.

Many people assume that if they lose their JSA, they lose the Housing Benefit for Rent as well but they can still get some even if the take home pay is more that they were getting in benefits.

You can only be worse off if there is some other expense involved in taking the P/T job.

I'm not up to date on the latest figures but as a rough guide you could be getting £60 JSA plus £60 rent = £120

A part time job of about £80 (take home) and you'd get around £55 in rent money, so £135.

A p/t job paying £120 (take home) and you'd still get around £25-£30 rent money, so £145 or £150.

Not huge gains but maybe it gets your foot back in the door for other work or increased hours.

Job Centre staff have access to a very good computer program that will give a very accurate before/after comparison if benefit recipients want to check what they could still get.

Part of the problem is that some people will look at their £120 or so in benefits and turn their nose up at a job for £200, thinking "I'm only working for £80."

It's kind of understandable, but then the other people who are on £200 would also be working "only for £80"...it's just that they don't think of it in the same way. They don't want to be £80 worse off, while some on JSA don't think £80 extra is enough.

Originally Posted by dunroving

That's a helpful explanation, thanks, I didn't realise that was the situation - but like you said, some people would look at it as working for just £80, rather than a potential stepping stone to a better life.

Originally Posted by Pomster

Years ago I used to work for Social Security and there were already many generations of "non-workers" with no plans to work. The family names which made us all groan. This was in a run down part of an otherwise wealthy area with plenty of work around.

We all knew of them and their many cash in hand jobs, but trying to prove it was hard. Even now when people get caught, they rarely pay back- so why committ fraud?- errr.... because you get away with it?

Originally Posted by livinginreality

If you are fit and able to work,you should only be able to get the dole for say a max of 6 mths,then you get cut off.People would soon get motivated to find work that way and if they did'nt?Tough ****!

Originally Posted by Easterndawn

An extra £80 per week would be luxurious for me, I have been trying to even get a part time job, but so far unsuccessful. The problem with even taking a 2 week or 6 week position is that I would lose my benefits and it would take me 2 weeks to a month to get them back if the position did not become a fulltime or permanent part time position. With no financial back up this is impossible for me to do.

Originally Posted by livinginreality

If you are fit and able to work,you should only be able to get the dole for say a max of 6 mths,then you get cut off.People would soon get motivated to find work that way and if they did'nt?Tough ****!

Originally Posted by bobbarker12345

Great in theory, doesnt work in reality. This is because in some areas of the country, there are just no jobs. Entrepreneurs do not want to start up in certains areas for whatever reason and the area becomes deprived of capital. Without capital, there is no growth, and hence high unemployment.

Originally Posted by Shandyclover

Perhaps UK should employ a system I heard used in Denmark - by a Danish friend of mine.

Unemployed are given 6 mos to find work - if they are not able to find work themselves, they must retrain in a government sponsered re-training programme with gives them new skills but also is hands-on in approach so they are working. If they fail to do this - they lose their benefits.