FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Benefits - should we do it differently ?
Benefits - should we do it differently ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Channel 5 have been doing a programme where they gave three families £26,000 each instead of their benefits. An experiment to see how they coped and if it would get them off benefits altogether.
So far - been interesting to watch as two families tried to set up a business with mixed results. One single mum blew a lot to start with but then realised the cost of living from paying her rent 6 months up front and her other bills. She genuinely didn't realise the cost of rent etc.
Do those on long term benefits lose touch with the cost of living and get stuck in a cycle they can't leave? Have we created this whole mess ourselves?
I know the benefit system is needed - I'm not saying that. It just seems to create a lot of division the way it's done at the moment.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Mmmm interesting I didn't see it. However, you would have to take into account everyone is individual. Those that save, those that take risks those that have to spend every last penny they have.
Those with addiction problems, imagine £26000 in the wrong hands. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You will always get the ones desperate to get paid work and I have been there! Did so many inter_iews when once n the dole I lost count.
The programs is good but not everyone is going to be able to start thier own business, just imagine everyone running thier own business it would be a right mess LoL.
I think people do lose touch with just how much it costs to live when rent is paid ect ( not saying it's easy) but life never is!
We have bred a culture of some saying fuck it why bother working when I can get by on what I get from the state especially some who just churn out children without a care in the world knowing that the state will have to support them.
Everytime they kick a family out of a council house they just have to rehouse them again 
I do believe in the theory that if you're going to give someone support then they should have to do some kind of work for it! As in maybe for the local council that pays the benifit or other support.
Even if it was only a couple of days a week it would justify the money and get something back for the local authority.
I believe that this would put most back into the ladder to getting a full time job at some point and benifit the community as well.
'Climbs back off of soap box' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There are specific schemes like this available for people who want to start own business to help with cash flow.
Job centre will give you grant of £100
Social fund will lend you up to £1000 that you can get away with not paying back till on the dole again
Also one months extra housing benefit
Housing benefits to pay rent till you have a viable business
Tax credits to help with food
There was a scheme a little while ago that you got £40 per week tax free to start own business up from job centre
There is help available
This help has always been in place to help people who want to and are willing to work for a living
But not everyone can stand the insecurity of signing off the dole to go self employed especially on a new start up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Channel 5 have been doing a programme where they gave three families £26,000 each instead of their benefits. An experiment to see how they coped and if it would get them off benefits altogether.
So far - been interesting to watch as two families tried to set up a business with mixed results. One single mum blew a lot to start with but then realised the cost of living from paying her rent 6 months up front and her other bills. She genuinely didn't realise the cost of rent etc.
Do those on long term benefits lose touch with the cost of living and get stuck in a cycle they can't leave? Have we created this whole mess ourselves?
I know the benefit system is needed - I'm not saying that. It just seems to create a lot of division the way it's done at the moment.
"
I haven't seen the program, but good on the couple's that at least attempted to make a go of it.
Something does need to be done with the benefit system, but as everyone says what?
I did hear of one European country did away with all benefits, they gave each citizen something like £150 a week each (just a figure that popped into my head, so might be wrong). That is for the employed and unemployed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ugby 123Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod O o O oo |
They all thought they were rich, £26000 is not a lot of money and certainly not enough to start a business and live while it takes off as most business takes a while to get going.
So my answer would be yes, they have lost sight of the real world. I don't see what you could do about it though as someone in real need does need help with a roof over their head etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think the unemployment benefit system should be time the same way a job is.
You turn up at the local office at 9am and make yourself available for whatever work may be needed to help the local community until 5pm.
Obviousley, if you have training or an inter_iew booked you will then be excused to attend.
You don't get your rent and bills paid for you. You get a debit card pre loaded with average amount required to pay rent and bills in your area. It's up to you spend it accordingly.
It would need some work but it would keep those long term unemployed from losing touch with reality and they would have a good reference when looking for work if they kept good attendance.
Don't turn up, don't get paid. Just like the real world. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think the unemployment benefit system should be time the same way a job is.
You turn up at the local office at 9am and make yourself available for whatever work may be needed to help the local community until 5pm.
Obviousley, if you have training or an inter_iew booked you will then be excused to attend.
You don't get your rent and bills paid for you. You get a debit card pre loaded with average amount required to pay rent and bills in your area. It's up to you spend it accordingly.
It would need some work but it would keep those long term unemployed from losing touch with reality and they would have a good reference when looking for work if they kept good attendance.
Don't turn up, don't get paid. Just like the real world. "
Where would all these people sit and look for work for all those hours? How many people can one jobcentre accommodate at a time? They do actually have schemes like this,I've been on one. After the until 4 weeks of training we were to go every day for 5 months to do job search from 9 until 5. We were allowed one hour a day on the computers and the rest was looking through the papers they provided. I was lucky enough to get a voluntary placement that led to a permanent job. I could have done the training and job search better at home with my own pc. The company who ran the courses made a lot of money from them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think there's a lot of solutions out there in other countries with proven results/failures.
This habit of continuing with what we "know" is very habitual in itself |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iewMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Angus & Findhorn |
The very small percentage abusing the system taint the overall impression.
I feel for the people desperate to get back into work and those impaired who can't.
I wish everyone seeking work good fortune.
I don't know the answer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
A good idea would be for work experience placements for everyone,not just for people who have been out of work for long periods of time. Getting qualifications you need to get a job and the experience at the same time would save time in the long run. It doesn't guarantee a job at the end but it's more for your cv than just unemployed or training. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are specific schemes like this available for people who want to start own business to help with cash flow.
Job centre will give you grant of £100
Social fund will lend you up to £1000 that you can get away with not paying back till on the dole again
Also one months extra housing benefit
Housing benefits to pay rent till you have a viable business
Tax credits to help with food
There was a scheme a little while ago that you got £40 per week tax free to start own business up from job centre
There is help available
This help has always been in place to help people who want to and are willing to work for a living
But not everyone can stand the insecurity of signing off the dole to go self employed especially on a new start up"
£100 from the jobcenter no longer exists
as goes for housing and tax credits and other tax perks can all be clawed back by the tax if your business dosnt seem viable after 6 months
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think the unemployment benefit system should be time the same way a job is.
You turn up at the local office at 9am and make yourself available for whatever work may be needed to help the local community until 5pm.
Obviousley, if you have training or an inter_iew booked you will then be excused to attend.
You don't get your rent and bills paid for you. You get a debit card pre loaded with average amount required to pay rent and bills in your area. It's up to you spend it accordingly.
It would need some work but it would keep those long term unemployed from losing touch with reality and they would have a good reference when looking for work if they kept good attendance.
Don't turn up, don't get paid. Just like the real world.
Where would all these people sit and look for work for all those hours? How many people can one jobcentre accommodate at a time? They do actually have schemes like this,I've been on one. After the until 4 weeks of training we were to go every day for 5 months to do job search from 9 until 5. We were allowed one hour a day on the computers and the rest was looking through the papers they provided. I was lucky enough to get a voluntary placement that led to a permanent job. I could have done the training and job search better at home with my own pc. The company who ran the courses made a lot of money from them."
In this day and age most people have access to a computer or a smart phone... The other day the local homeless guys were arguing over who had the best smart phone...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think the unemployment benefit system should be time the same way a job is.
You turn up at the local office at 9am and make yourself available for whatever work may be needed to help the local community until 5pm.
Obviousley, if you have training or an inter_iew booked you will then be excused to attend.
You don't get your rent and bills paid for you. You get a debit card pre loaded with average amount required to pay rent and bills in your area. It's up to you spend it accordingly.
It would need some work but it would keep those long term unemployed from losing touch with reality and they would have a good reference when looking for work if they kept good attendance.
Don't turn up, don't get paid. Just like the real world.
Where would all these people sit and look for work for all those hours? How many people can one jobcentre accommodate at a time? They do actually have schemes like this,I've been on one. After the until 4 weeks of training we were to go every day for 5 months to do job search from 9 until 5. We were allowed one hour a day on the computers and the rest was looking through the papers they provided. I was lucky enough to get a voluntary placement that led to a permanent job. I could have done the training and job search better at home with my own pc. The company who ran the courses made a lot of money from them.
In this day and age most people have access to a computer or a smart phone... The other day the local homeless guys were arguing over who had the best smart phone...
"
But you weren't allowed to be autonomous,you had to do what they told you. I didn't have a smart phone at the time anyway,no one did. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Channel 5 have been doing a programme where they gave three families £26,000 each instead of their benefits. An experiment to see how they coped and if it would get them off benefits altogether.
So far - been interesting to watch as two families tried to set up a business with mixed results. One single mum blew a lot to start with but then realised the cost of living from paying her rent 6 months up front and her other bills. She genuinely didn't realise the cost of rent etc.
Do those on long term benefits lose touch with the cost of living and get stuck in a cycle they can't leave? Have we created this whole mess ourselves?
I know the benefit system is needed - I'm not saying that. It just seems to create a lot of division the way it's done at the moment.
"
Where do they get £26k from is what I would like to know, as a full time working single parent i live off £19k a year which includes the child benefit payment, if they are going to do programmes like this they should use figures that real workers live off |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's interesting.
The focus is again on the poorest as seen through the 'lens' of C5, which is slightly dodgy from the off.
I've been reading some stuff recently that strongly suggests that the determining factors in 'success' or 'failure' is UK society are historical.
Basically, if your ancestors were poor in the 19th cent. you are likely to be poor, while if your ancestors were upper/middle class, you are also likely to be there.
You can fiddle with the margins of the problem all you like but after 150 years of social 'reform' social mobility has remained stubbornly immobile.
Food for thought... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Mmmm interesting I didn't see it. However, you would have to take into account everyone is individual. Those that save, those that take risks those that have to spend every last penny they have.
Those with addiction problems, imagine £26000 in the wrong hands. "
Well there would probably be a lot less addicts in a very short time... and a supply and demand problem  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's interesting.
The focus is again on the poorest as seen through the 'lens' of C5, which is slightly dodgy from the off.
I've been reading some stuff recently that strongly suggests that the determining factors in 'success' or 'failure' is UK society are historical.
Basically, if your ancestors were poor in the 19th cent. you are likely to be poor, while if your ancestors were upper/middle class, you are also likely to be there.
You can fiddle with the margins of the problem all you like but after 150 years of social 'reform' social mobility has remained stubbornly immobile.
Food for thought... "
That surprises me, I would have thought there had been significant upward social mobility as there are now far fewer people that I would class as "poor" than even 30 or 40 years ago, never mind 150. Unless it's just determined in relative terms? In my family (which I don't think is unusual) everyone was dirt poor until my parents generation; who went to grammar school, on to university with grants and we're now all firmly middle class. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's interesting.
The focus is again on the poorest as seen through the 'lens' of C5, which is slightly dodgy from the off.
I've been reading some stuff recently that strongly suggests that the determining factors in 'success' or 'failure' is UK society are historical.
Basically, if your ancestors were poor in the 19th cent. you are likely to be poor, while if your ancestors were upper/middle class, you are also likely to be there.
You can fiddle with the margins of the problem all you like but after 150 years of social 'reform' social mobility has remained stubbornly immobile.
Food for thought...
That surprises me, I would have thought there had been significant upward social mobility as there are now far fewer people that I would class as "poor" than even 30 or 40 years ago, never mind 150. Unless it's just determined in relative terms? In my family (which I don't think is unusual) everyone was dirt poor until my parents generation; who went to grammar school, on to university with grants and we're now all firmly middle class. "
Yes, there are exceptions to the rule but it is overwhelming that if your ancestors were poor, the chances are you will be too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/secret-history-of-my-family |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's interesting.
The focus is again on the poorest as seen through the 'lens' of C5, which is slightly dodgy from the off.
I've been reading some stuff recently that strongly suggests that the determining factors in 'success' or 'failure' is UK society are historical.
Basically, if your ancestors were poor in the 19th cent. you are likely to be poor, while if your ancestors were upper/middle class, you are also likely to be there.
You can fiddle with the margins of the problem all you like but after 150 years of social 'reform' social mobility has remained stubbornly immobile.
Food for thought...
That surprises me, I would have thought there had been significant upward social mobility as there are now far fewer people that I would class as "poor" than even 30 or 40 years ago, never mind 150. Unless it's just determined in relative terms? In my family (which I don't think is unusual) everyone was dirt poor until my parents generation; who went to grammar school, on to university with grants and we're now all firmly middle class. "
I tend to agree with you, my family had nothing. My grandfather was born in a workhouse in east London but my brothers and sisters and myself have all done well for ourselves, and our children look likely to do better than us.
The same can be said for most of my social circle.
I don't know anyone who is as poor as their grandparents , or even parents, were.
But maybe, as usual, I have misunderstood what was said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Channel 5 have been doing a programme where they gave three families £26,000 each instead of their benefits. An experiment to see how they coped and if it would get them off benefits altogether.
So far - been interesting to watch as two families tried to set up a business with mixed results. One single mum blew a lot to start with but then realised the cost of living from paying her rent 6 months up front and her other bills. She genuinely didn't realise the cost of rent etc.
Do those on long term benefits lose touch with the cost of living and get stuck in a cycle they can't leave? Have we created this whole mess ourselves?
I know the benefit system is needed - I'm not saying that. It just seems to create a lot of division the way it's done at the moment.
Where do they get £26k from is what I would like to know, as a full time working single parent i live off £19k a year which includes the child benefit payment, if they are going to do programmes like this they should use figures that real workers live off"
£26000 is the maximum amount of benifits a family can claim...
This seems wrong to me as the average earnings are £23000.
When you consider that a lot of workers are earning considerably less than this, I don't know how they can justify this amount... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm sure that those on benefits - including the thousands in work and claiming supplementary benefits - know only too well what the cost of living is. And the poorest amongst us die many years earlier than the wealthiest - that's part of the real cost of living with low income levels.
The right wing started a huge campaign to shame benefits, including the disabled. It is immoral and shameful and I refuse to give it energy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm sure that those on benefits - including the thousands in work and claiming supplementary benefits - know only too well what the cost of living is. And the poorest amongst us die many years earlier than the wealthiest - that's part of the real cost of living with low income levels.
The right wing started a huge campaign to shame benefits, including the disabled. It is immoral and shameful and I refuse to give it energy."
Here here!
The current 'debate' pits the 'have-nots' against the 'have nothings' - pssst! Don't look at what's going on above! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's interesting.
The focus is again on the poorest as seen through the 'lens' of C5, which is slightly dodgy from the off.
I've been reading some stuff recently that strongly suggests that the determining factors in 'success' or 'failure' is UK society are historical.
Basically, if your ancestors were poor in the 19th cent. you are likely to be poor, while if your ancestors were upper/middle class, you are also likely to be there.
You can fiddle with the margins of the problem all you like but after 150 years of social 'reform' social mobility has remained stubbornly immobile.
Food for thought...
That surprises me, I would have thought there had been significant upward social mobility as there are now far fewer people that I would class as "poor" than even 30 or 40 years ago, never mind 150. Unless it's just determined in relative terms? In my family (which I don't think is unusual) everyone was dirt poor until my parents generation; who went to grammar school, on to university with grants and we're now all firmly middle class.
Yes, there are exceptions to the rule but it is overwhelming that if your ancestors were poor, the chances are you will be too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/secret-history-of-my-family"
Interesting read, I'm still surprised by it - just about everyone I know is similar to me (v poor ancestors but now middle class), although of course that can be that similar groups of people gravitate towards one another. I can understand that there wouldn't have been shifts downwards - once people are upper class that tends to stay - but it doesn't explain the growth of the middle classes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's interesting.
The focus is again on the poorest as seen through the 'lens' of C5, which is slightly dodgy from the off.
I've been reading some stuff recently that strongly suggests that the determining factors in 'success' or 'failure' is UK society are historical.
Basically, if your ancestors were poor in the 19th cent. you are likely to be poor, while if your ancestors were upper/middle class, you are also likely to be there.
You can fiddle with the margins of the problem all you like but after 150 years of social 'reform' social mobility has remained stubbornly immobile.
Food for thought...
That surprises me, I would have thought there had been significant upward social mobility as there are now far fewer people that I would class as "poor" than even 30 or 40 years ago, never mind 150. Unless it's just determined in relative terms? In my family (which I don't think is unusual) everyone was dirt poor until my parents generation; who went to grammar school, on to university with grants and we're now all firmly middle class.
Yes, there are exceptions to the rule but it is overwhelming that if your ancestors were poor, the chances are you will be too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/secret-history-of-my-family
Interesting read, I'm still surprised by it - just about everyone I know is similar to me (v poor ancestors but now middle class), although of course that can be that similar groups of people gravitate towards one another. I can understand that there wouldn't have been shifts downwards - once people are upper class that tends to stay - but it doesn't explain the growth of the middle classes. "
Haha!
According the Daily Mail, around 50% of people define themselves as middle class...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3350367/Aspirational-Britain-nearly-half-say-middle-class.html
Yet the actual structure is more complicated...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_structure_of_the_United_Kingdom |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting read, I'm still surprised by it - just about everyone I know is similar to me (v poor ancestors but now middle class), although of course that can be that similar groups of people gravitate towards one another. I can understand that there wouldn't have been shifts downwards - once people are upper class that tends to stay - but it doesn't explain the growth of the middle classes.
Haha!
According the Daily Mail, around 50% of people define themselves as middle class...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3350367/Aspirational-Britain-nearly-half-say-middle-class.html
Yet the actual structure is more complicated...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_structure_of_the_United_Kingdom"
And then compare that against this...
The strange death of the British middle class
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/08/the-missing-middle/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man
over a year ago
NW London |
I think that youngsters in poorer communities (with high unemployment) often lack good role models who they can look up to and learn from by example. Too often in these communities the only ppl perceived to have money are drug dealers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think we need to bring in Universal Basic Income. I think Norway have just done it or are about to and France I think. Maybe one or two other countries. It seems to have support on the right and the left.
As technology evolves more and more people will have to be on benefits and there just won't be enough jobs to justify the pressure put on by the Job Centre so UBI seems like a good route until we work out a better way of doing things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
