Family life on benefits

[wemorgan]

BBC News - Family life on benefits

I can see how this thread will unravel. But even a well balanced person will struggle to fully justify some of the weekly expenses this token 'family on benefits' makes.

'I go out once a week, on a Friday night. I meet up with my mates in the pub and have three or four pints

We get the Sky Movies package because we're stuck in the house all week - otherwise we wouldn't have any entertainment.'

'My wife and I have mobile phones, and so do all of the teenage children. You try telling teenagers they're going to have to do without their mobiles and there'll be hell to pay.'

Weekly shopping £240Includes food and household goods, 24 cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large pouch of tobacco

Their logical reasoning leaves a lot to be desired

'Gas and electricity bills have gone up massively over the last couple of years - two years ago we were paying £20 a week. If they do cut our benefit we are going to have to choose between eating and heating the house properly.'

Heaven forbid having to consider reducing the amount of beer and cigarettes they consume.

It's enough to turn me to the booze.......or at least comfort in browsing Autotrader

 

[Howard]

I can't watch things like this , it would make me smash my own telly.

 

[Satch]

Might also ask them and a great many others why, precisely, they have so many children?

(Noting what the vast majority of their "income" is linked to and what these children will start claiming when old enough)

 

[LudoCLS]

this makes me ill.....

 

[SilverSaloon]

it makes me sick.

why cant benefits be given out using a voucher system. ie vouchers for food (to be "spent" at supermarkets for certain types of food), heating supply etc etc could be automated. clothing for school uniforms etc

then they wouldnt be able to spend their benefits on Sky+ HD

 

[carat 3.6]

I get angry just thinking about it, but the fact that our tax'es are paying for their drinking/smoking habits makes it worse.

+1 For the voucher system.

 

[Red C220]

These cases are clearly oddities. Not many people that claim benefits have seven children.

If you've been working hard and covering the cost of your seven children and through no fault of your own lose your work then ok. But knowingly increasing the number of your offspring whilst unemployed and claiming should be treated differently. Although I have no doubt that would be some breach of your human rights.

I find it astonishing that after 11 years he's still managing to claim Job Seekers Allowance. The systems and scheme set in place to get you off this (and as a result off the unemployment statistics) mean most people struggle to stay on it for 6 months or more. The idea of this mainly so the government headline figures for unemployment can be officially stated a lot lower than reality.

 

[Bellow]

our tax'es are paying for their drinking/smoking habits makes it worse.

Which are virtually all tax - so it all goes back again.

That Murdoch gets a slice - now that could seriously hose me off!

 

[developer]

I find it astonishing that after 11 years he's still managing to claim Job Seekers Allowance. The systems and scheme set in place to get you off this (and as a result off the unemployment statistics) mean most people struggle to stay on it for 6 months or more. The idea of this mainly so the government headline figures for unemployment can be officially stated a lot lower than reality.

Although I can't tell you why or how, I can tell you that I know of couple of tenants who were on JSA when properties were bought in 1994 and 1995 respectively and they are both still on JSA.

 

[wemorgan]

What struct me more than just the length of unemployment and number of children, was their assessment of the essentials they bought each week. And then when faced with a proposed cut in benefits failed to see clearly where easy savings could be made. As much as I feel angry I feel pity towards then, as they've clearly descended in to a dark hole of existence: day time Sky TV, 4 cans of lager each evening, a packet of cigarettes, then time for bed....repeat until and early death.

 

[davidjpowell]

The press will polarise on this. Watch the Daily Mail go for the extreme angle.

Put yourself in the position of the 30 year old family man, had a job for x years, missed the start of the housing boom so with a big mortgage and a couple of kids. Wife can't go to work as she can't afford enough to pay the child care. They have sky, a car, and a couple of phones etc.

His employer goes bust. Suddenly no income. Say he get's vouchers? Sky won't go away instantly because they are in contract. He could lose a phone, subject to the contract, but might miss out on a job. Bank still want paying...

Job seekers need cash as inevitably they are going to have to rob Peter to pay Paul, while hopefully getting a job.

How are they supposed to attend an interview with a voucher, especially if they live in the country say with one bus per day.

My own view is that lenders and large organisations should be obliged to suspend the debt until they are working. But even this would bring problems, as it would deter or make impossible the worker taking a lower paid job, as suddenly some or all of the bills would be payable on a lower age.

There are no easy answers and anyone who says there are is taking a simplistic and dogmatic view.

 

[Satch]

These cases are clearly oddities. Not many people that claim benefits have seven children.

At September 2010 per the DWP there were in excess of 10.000 families with 6 or more children living entirely off benefits.

And even if the changes go through 10,000 lots of £26,000 comes to.......

 

[st4]

My own view is that lenders and large organisations should be obliged to suspend the debt until they are working. But even this would bring problems, as it would deter or make impossible the worker taking a lower paid job, as suddenly some or all of the bills would be payable on a lower age.

Financial organizations actually do this. In genuine cases of financial hardship reduced payments plans are put in place once the customer is into arrears etc.

Vast chunks of debt is written off. This brings massive problems that we are seeing in some banks, and now people complain its harder to get credit as more controls etc are in place.

If financial institutions wrote off any more, the end cost would need to be passed onto the "good customers" in the form of higher rates of borrowing and account charges.

Many people are on benefits are genuine jobs seekers and get there in the end.

However, these people are scum and their children will more than likely turn out to be freeloading scum. This scum breeds and breeds to rob the welfare state in order to drink and smoke and watch SKY TV.

In 2001 he could have retrained and got a job as something else, or taken a crap low paid one. By now he'd be further on.

 

[Stratman]

Rather than place a cap on the yearly amount of benefits a person can claim, I think there's a lot to be said for a 'lifetime allowance', not in cash terms but time. You can claim whatever Unemployment Benefit is called for a maximum of, ooh, let's say three years between leaving school and the state pension age. After that you're on your own.

 

[davidjpowell]

Financial organizations actually do this. In genuine cases of financial hardship reduced payments plans are put in place once the customer is into arrears etc.

Vast chunks of debt is written off. This brings massive problems that we are seeing in some banks, and now people complain its harder to get credit as more controls etc are in place.

If financial institutions wrote off any more, the end cost would need to be passed onto the "good customers" in the form of higher rates of borrowing and account charges.

Many people are on benefits are genuine jobs seekers and get there in the end.

However, these people are scum and their children will more than likely turn out to be freeloading scum. This scum breeds and breeds to rob the welfare state in order to drink and smoke and watch SKY TV.

I suspect that some do some don't. Some will pass onto the parasite debt collectors etc.

Banks, other than when they do stupid things do seem to have a decent profit margin and I would think could stand this.

Obviously debt should only be suspended if it's occurred when in employment, not unemployment!

 

[Harrythedog]

These type of people are spoiling a well intended system that is supposed to help the unfortunate

 

[st4]

I suspect that some do some don't. Some will pass onto the parasite debt collectors etc.

As does every other industry. However if the customer gets in contact sooner and explains the situation or approaches a company like payplan, a lot can be done.

For worse cases, many banks can offer a reduced full and final settlement figure based on a write off of over 20% IIRC. This would get recorded on the credit file and make things very hard. At this stage, its curtains really and they are at the hands of refinancing the reduced debt with the likes of Ocean finance, but its better than the "harder way" in the long run.

Obviously debt should only be suspended if it's occurred when in employment, not unemployment!

This is where PPI does come in. Without going into the Ins and Outs of it all, PPI does pay out and it can cover the loan amount. Not always but its there. 3rd party companies can supply PPI as well, it doesn't have to be with the bank.

 

[Harrythedog]

At one time being on the dole or getting benefits of any kind were seen as a stigma but the do-gooders and tree-huggers have managed to change people's perception of this. It's time it was turned around.

 

[Red C220]

At September 2010 per the DWP there were in excess of 10.000 families with 6 or more children living entirely off benefits.

And even if the changes go through 10,000 lots of £26,000 comes to.......

Where on earth did that statistic come from?

 

[davethemus]

Obviously debt should only be suspended if it's occurred when in employment, not unemployment!

any company that gives an unemployed person credit deserves to go under.