Can't Survive on £26k a Year Benefit

[leicsmac]

True enough. I would argue, however, that the influence of political agenda (usually from proprietorship) in the mainstream media is the least relevant it has ever been. With the mass of opinion and information widely available on the internet, it's never long before the full story becomes clear about anything.

I think that, editorially, most elements of the media are most concerned with breaking the most sensational stories than by pushing a political agenda.

To take a simplistic example, most media outlets were equally happy to disgrace both Con and Lab MPs in the expenses scandal.

So sorry, but I must disagree here. In my view the vast majority of people will not trawl the Web to find news from various different sources. To them it's too much effort - why do that when you can just look at one site/one paper/one TV channel.

I think the majority of people never want to hear conflicting views about things. They want to hear views that reinforce their own societal views, and prove that the world is turning in the way they want it to - and will continue to do so.

"People don't want truth, freedom or love. What they want is the assurance that tomorrow will be just like today."

[Saxondale]

I think the majority of people never want to hear conflicting views about things. They want to hear views that reinforce their own societal views, and prove that the world is turning in the way they want it to - and will continue to do so.

Well if this is the case, then this tallies with an earlier post in the thread that suggests that the so-called right-wing media is consumed because it's fits with people's views rather than forms them? Which, if it's merely reinforcing people's opinions rather than forming them, negates its alleged influence.

[leicsmac]

Well if this is the case, then this tallies with an earlier post in the thread that suggests that the so-called right-wing media is consumed because it's fits with people's views rather than forms them? Which, if it's merely reinforcing people's opinions rather than forming them, negates its alleged influence.

If it is reinforcing peoples viewpoints, then it IS having an influence - to perform said reinforcement.

All of this doesn't allow for any kind of dynamism or change...not unless the people who run the media wish it or a big external influence come in. That's beginning to happen with the Internet, but it's a slow process.

[Saxondale]

If it is reinforcing peoples viewpoints, then it IS having an influence - to perform said reinforcement.

All of this doesn't allow for any kind of dynamism or change...not unless the people who run the media wish it or a big external influence come in. That's beginning to happen with the Internet, but it's a slow process.

I suppose it depends if we're talking about party politics or ideology.

For example, people will read about individuals getting huge amount of benefits and either think "bastards!" or "yeah, what's wrong with that".

But I suppose it's more relevant if people keep reading "Tories are evil" or "Labour are corrupt" for example.

[leicsmac]

I suppose it depends if we're talking about party politics or ideology.

For example, people will read about individuals getting huge amount of benefits and either think "bastards!" or "yeah, what's wrong with that".

But I suppose it's more relevant if people keep reading "Tories are evil" or "Labour are corrupt" for example.

I think those two things are inextricably linked - party politics is based on the ideology of the members (and to a lesser extent the voters) of that party.

Newspapers tend to push the ideology angle more because it's more subtle, except when election time comes around, then they're blatantly party political.

Guess what I'm trying to say is that same ideology is fed to a lot of people who gulp it down and take those views as utter gospel just because it ties in with their existing views. People don't look at things from a variety of angles enough.

Edit: In any case, I think we're veering off topic here - sorry about that.

[Captain...]

If it's a free world for people to have loads of kids, it should also be free for them to deal with the consequences, both actual and potential, without expecting someone else to be responsible for them.

But situations change, families who were well off during the last 10 years may have decided they could afford to have 4 kids based on the wages they were earning, but due to the current recession have found themselves made redundant and unable to support them, so shuold they then be made destitute and forced into poverty? Especially when considering they had probably contributed a lot to the economy up to that point and will be able to again when it recovers.

What frustrates me about these kind of views is that there is no room for middle ground, it is so black or white when the reality is usually not the case.

Going back to the 26k, most people on here can't accept that some people may need more than 26k to acheive a basic standard of living, but what if that is the case, we are talking about households not individuals, there may be all kinds of dependents, children, elderly, then disbaled children/parents/partners/grandparents/siblings. Some people have it tough, some people need more money than others to have and provide a basic standard of living. Why is this possibility just dimissed out of hand?

A review of these extreme cases should be conducted, find out why they do need so much money and where cuts can be made, or provisions to ensure that their quality of life is not impacted but they are less of an economic burden. Maybe re-housing would be adequate in some cases, maybe food stamps, maybe a live in carer would ease the burden and be more economically viable, is it a temporary or permanent thing. What are the consequences of reducing their benefit?

This is not being addressed this not being considered or looked at, the Government has decided, as it has done throughout its time in charge, to take a quick look at the problem and apply a quick fix.

[Saxondale]

I think those two things are inextricably linked - party politics is based on the ideology of the members (and to a lesser extent the voters) of that party.

Newspapers tend to push the ideology angle more because it's more subtle, except when election time comes around, then they're blatantly party political.

Guess what I'm trying to say is that same ideology is fed to a lot of people who gulp it down and take those views as utter gospel just because it ties in with their existing views. People don't look at things from a variety of angles enough.

Fair point, but I think ideology is more about deeply held belief - like if you believe in a god or not. Most people will instinctively think something is wrong or right.

Without being patronising, I suppose it's down to intelligence. Some people understand politics better than others and can form informed opinions more easily.

But I suppose you're correct in as much as a media source can draw links between certain specific ideologies or components thereof and the respective political parties in order to exert political influence.

[Saxondale]

What frustrates me about these kind of views is that there is no room for middle ground, it is so black or white when the reality is usually not the case.

I think you're wrong. I think most people DO want a sensible middle-ground.

[leicsmac]

Fair point, but I think ideology is more about deeply held belief - like if you believe in a god or not. Most people will instinctively think something is wrong or right.

Without being patronising, I suppose it's down to intelligence. Some people understand politics better than others and can form informed opinions more easily.

But I suppose you're correct in as much as a media source can draw links between certain specific ideologies or components thereof and the respective political parties in order to exert political influence.

Agree and agree with that. And the media do. They do it all the time.

As I mentioned before, a totally apolitical daily paper that only presented news events would have at least one buyer.

[Webbo]

Why is it that you and those like you get all bent out of shape over a handful of people who cost the country millions but shrug your shoulders and look the other way about everything which costs the country trillions?

Imbeciles talking in terms of left and right are the problem because they see everything as party politics, a system which has failed this country to a shameful level.

You want fairness?

Why the fvck should either of us be paying tax when Vodaphone have £6billion written off? Just one single little example which dwarfs any benefit issue you may have and yet I'm betting you either couldn't give a fvck about it or have done fvck all about it.

But a single woman has a bigger house than you and an email is being written to the Mail letters' page before you can say 'causes cancer'...

How do you know that Vodaphone haven't paid their fair share of taxes? Did you read that in the Guardian?

What about all the people wasting their lives on benefits when they could be doing something useful? What kind of example are they setting for their children, bringing them up to believe they are entitled to what they want and someone else can pay?

This isn't about money, this'll save around £270million, a drop in the ocean against a trillion pound deficit. It's about doing what's right, it's about changing lives instead of dressing up complacency as compassion.

[Saxondale]

Agree and agree with that. And the media do. They do it all the time.

As I mentioned before, a totally apolitical daily paper that only presented news events would have at least one buyer.

Yeah, it's impossible though. People would always pick holes in what's reported and how, and what's not reported. And even if there's not proprietorship agenda, there will be an editorial one.

For example, The Guardian was put under control of a trust ensuring total protection from proprietor agendas after an event called the Peterloo Riots many years ago. It's agenda is formed editorially.

[leicsmac]

Yeah, it's impossible though. People would always pick holes in what's reported and how, and what's not reported. And even if there's not proprietorship agenda, there will be an editorial one.

For example, The Guardian was formed by a trust ensuring total protection from proprietor agendas after an event called the Peterloo Riots many years ago. It's agenda is formed editorially.

Yeah, I know. Damn shame, really.

But what people should do is use far more than one source for their news.

[Saxondale]

Yeah, I know. Damn shame, really.

But what people should do is use far more than one source for their news.

Correct.

[danny.]

But situations change, families who were well off during the last 10 years may have decided they could afford to have 4 kids based on the wages they were earning, but due to the current recession have found themselves made redundant and unable to support them, so shuold they then be made destitute and forced into poverty? Especially when considering they had probably contributed a lot to the economy up to that point and will be able to again when it recovers.

Depends how you define poverty - if it's not being able to afford Sky and all the kids have an Xbox and Nintendo DS then it's just a consequence of the risk they took when having 4 kids. Not ideal but how it has to be until they get back on their feet.

If I bought a 300k house and then lost my job and couldn't pay the mortgage, I would expect to lose the house and move to a crap bedsit if that's all I could afford, just a I'd have to take risk when I bought the house. I wouldn't expect anyone to pay my way because I'd lost my job.

I would of course expect a family with 4 kids to be educated, fed and sheltered though. Considering there is free education and the fact you can buy a LOT of food from Aldi, Asda Smart Price, Iceland etc. for very little money then I think the equivalent of £34k a year is more than enough for basics.

[Charl91]

My reply was aimed at certain posts that said only the well off should be allowed to have 4 kids...

I was 1 of 5 brothers, my dad used to work nights down the pit, come home, have a couple of hours kip and then do 6 hours on a coal round. (I`m sure he got more sleep down the pit than at home)

All people are not the same and to say we should`nt be allowed to have over 3 kids unless you earn a certain amount of money is a right load of bollox.

I'm not saying you have to be rich to have lots of kids, not in the slightest. Just the ability to either pay for the fundamental things needed for a fairly good quality of life (by that I mean shelter and food, not sky and a HD TV). If you're not attempting to make any effort to provide for your kids, then you shouldn't have them.

People seem to have grown up thinking they have a divine right to get money from the govenment. In certain circumstances I agree - redundancy or disability, or general inability to get a job. Not because you can't be bothered. Like you said, your dad worked his ass of down the pit. So how do you think he would have felt if money he earned went to people who didn't work, not because they couldn't, but because they were too lazy and chose not to.

Plus the argument that because I agree with cuts, I must also agree with the greedy bankers is a ridiculous one.

[Captain...]

Depends how you define poverty - if it's not being able to afford Sky and all the kids have an Xbox and Nintendo DS then it's just a consequence of the risk they took when having 4 kids. Not ideal but how it has to be until they get back on their feet.

If I bought a 300k house and then lost my job and couldn't pay the mortgage, I would expect to lose the house and move to a crap bedsit if that's all I could afford, just a I'd have to take risk when I bought the house. I wouldn't expect anyone to pay my way because I'd lost my job.

I would of course expect a family with 4 kids to be educated, fed and sheltered though. Considering there is free education and the fact you can buy a LOT of food from Aldi, Asda Smart Price, Iceland etc. for very little money then I think the equivalent of £34k a year is more than enough for basics.

Clearly that is not poverty, but this argument takes the view point that anyone earning 26k in benefits is spending it on such things, and not spending it on care and food and the basics.

Of course a normal famly can be fed and clothed and sheltered and educated for much less than 26k (stop using this 34k figure as it is wrong, you are basing it on a single figure income pre tax. This is a household, and as I have mentioned many times it is the equivalent of 2 people earning 15k pre tax, with no benefits coming in.)

The cases where they are receiving more than 26k in benefits are not the norm, they are the exception. You don't know what special requirements they have to be able to claim that amount of money. Neither do I, but my issue is that the Government doesn't either, even if it is just 1% of those currently earning over 26K that need all of that money to keep their family out of poverty and provide the basics then this cap is wrong.

[Captain...]

How do you know that Vodaphone haven't paid their fair share of taxes? Did you read that in the Guardian?

What about all the people wasting their lives on benefits when they could be doing something useful? What kind of example are they setting for their children, bringing them up to believe they are entitled to what they want and someone else can pay?

This isn't about money, this'll save around £270million, a drop in the ocean against a trillion pound deficit. It's about doing what's right, it's about changing lives instead of dressing up complacency as compassion.

What about them? How are they going to be affected by this, what is being done to address this issue? Nothing.

I think we can all agree that a normal household can live comfortably on 26k tax free, this is not going to deter people from basing their lifestyle on living off benefits.

[Webbo]

Do you have children? If you do do you receive child benefit? If you do then do you include that as part of your income? Just curious as to how people judge their income.

What you don't consider is that even though they may be receiving more money per week than you doesn't mean they are better off than you, for example living in London means you need more money to provide the basics than in Leicester housing and general living costs are much higher. Disability benefit is included in this 26K so you don't know how much of that money is spent on dealing with a disability, as an example if you require 10k a year to deal with your disability, then at 26k benefits you are only left with 14k to live on, for a household.

This person is not better off than you, more money does not mean being better off if you have more costs or higher costs.

Yes we have children, we get child benefit and tax credits but we also pay tax, we have to fill up our car to get to work and all the other expenses of earning a living.

£26k a year tax free is not starvation wages, if someone needs more money then they should get a job, which is the whole point of the changes.

[Webbo]

What about them? How are they going to be affected by this, what is being done to address this issue? Nothing.

It stops welfare being a disincentive to work. It means that you won't be worse off taking a job.

I think we can all agree that a household can live comfortably on 26k tax free,

So what's the problem?

[Captain...]

Yes we have children, we get child benefit and tax credits but we also pay tax, we have to fill up our car to get to work and all the other expenses of earning a living.

£26k a year tax free is not starvation wages, if someone needs more money then they should get a job, which is the whole point of the changes.

It is not that simple, some people can't get jobs, some people have much higher living costs, some people have to support disabled and seriously ill family members. Not every case is simply about money.

With regard child benefit and tax credits, how much does that affect your post tax income and does that make it closer to 26K, obviously I don't want you to post your income on here, but I am curious. I am single and have no benefits and a very low income but I don't really care because I live in Spain and am enjoying life. My point is people compare this to a 34k salary, or 2 15k salaries, but that is inaccurate because even if you earnt 34k you would be eligible for child benefits which you would receive on top of that.

[Captain...]

It stops welfare being a disincentive to work. It means that you won't be worse off taking a job.

So what's the problem?

Sorry I probably should have put a normal family, the dissincentive to work is still there, I can earn 26k on benefits, cool, I won't bother with a job. A normal family under normal circumstances does not require 26k a year, those that do receive that much is because of special circumstances and these need to be addressed not just cut off. As does the abuse of the benefits system.

[danny.]

Clearly that is not poverty, but this argument takes the view point that anyone earning 26k in benefits is spending it on such things, and not spending it on care and food and the basics.

Of course a normal famly can be fed and clothed and sheltered and educated for much less than 26k (stop using this 34k figure as it is wrong, you are basing it on a single figure income pre tax. This is a household, and as I have mentioned many times it is the equivalent of 2 people earning 15k pre tax, with no benefits coming in.)

I knew a family of 4 that were on benefits a few years ago, none of them worked (even though 1 was completely able, and 2 others could albeit part time) they got around 22k a year total (no tax) in benefits and had sky, big plasma tv, re-decorated every year, went to the pub 2-3 times a week, loads of takeaways, all had laptops, PS3s, xboxes, went on holidays etc - lived a LOT better than I did!!

They actually said once that Person X should probably get a job but if they did they would lose the benefits so it wasn't worth it as their standard of life would go down.

[Webbo]

It is not that simple, some people can't get jobs, some people have much higher living costs, some people have to support disabled and seriously ill family members. Not every case is simply about money.

With regard child benefit and tax credits, how much does that affect your post tax income and does that make it closer to 26K, obviously I don't want you to post your income on here, but I am curious. I am single and have no benefits and a very low income but I don't really care because I live in Spain and am enjoying life. My point is people compare this to a 34k salary, or 2 15k salaries, but that is inaccurate because even if you earnt 34k you would be eligible for child benefits which you would receive on top of that.

I'm self employed so it's hard to be exact.After tax it would probably be around £24-£25k

I don't totally blame people for playing the system, if you're better off not working than working then it's obviously tempting not to. There are single mothers in my family who have been advised by different govt agencies to go on benefits rather than work, fortunately none of us were brought up that way. They got jobs and progressed and are better off now than they would have been if they'd stayed at home.

The system is wrong and it's rightly being changed.

[Captain...]

I knew a family of 4 that were on benefits a few years ago, none of them worked (even though 1 was completely able, and 2 others could albeit part time) they got around 22k a year total (no tax) in benefits and had sky, big plasma tv, re-decorated every year, went to the pub 2-3 times a week, loads of takeaways, all had laptops, PS3s, xboxes, went on holidays etc - lived a LOT better than I did!!

They actually said once that Person X should probably get a job but if they did they would lose the benefits so it wasn't worth it as their standard of life would go down.

And they still will with a cap of 26k, the benfits system needs a total reform, but denying people benefits that they qualify for is wrong, they need to be looking at why they qualify for 26k of benefits and whether or not they need it, not just reducing it.

[Captain...]

I'm self employed so it's hard to be exact.After tax it would probably be around £24-£25k

I don't totally blame people for playing the system, if you're better off not working than working then it's obviously tempting not to. There are single mothers in my family who have been advised by different govt agencies to go on benefits rather than work, fortunately none of us were brought up that way. They got jobs and progressed and are better off now than they would have been if they'd stayed at home.

The system is wrong and it's rightly being changed.

But it is being changed in the wrong way, the example you give about the single mothers in your family is why there is a benefit problem in this country, if you accept that some households may need 26k in benefit then it is not difficult to se a change in circumstances that would push them over the threshold, an increase in rent, another child, an increase in VAT.

To say if you need 26k to provide a basic standard of living for your family then we will help, but if you need 26,500 to provide the same level then tough just doesn't make sense. Address the cause, look at getting people back in to work, looking at providing affordable state run nursery services to allow mothers to work part time, look at eliminating benefit cheats, reduce JSA, reduce child beenfits or look at making living on benefits productive and giving something back to the state.

Create a benefit mothers nursery service, those mothers on benefits can run these state supported nursery services to allow other mothers to go to work, simple, problem solved.

Or a benefits clean up team, you wan to earn your benefits you have to spend 4 hours day doing clean up work, street sweeping, cleaning graffitti etc.

Giving people the means to do nothing, get no experience, get no opportunities and live off the state is wrong, but so is not providing the benefit required/deserved/needed by the hardest hit.