living in poverty

[Pettytom 1]

4 minutes ago, ez8004 said:

It’s not a debt. Calling it as such just shows that you fundamentally do not understand how the system works. It is best described as a graduate tax. 

 

What debts do you know can ultimately be written off without paying any of it back and not affect your credit score?

It is a debt if you earn a fairly moderate amount of money.

 

It is also a con trick, one which you have hinted at in your second paragraph.

 

 

[Voice of reason 0]

39 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

It is a debt if you earn a fairly moderate amount of money.

 

It is also a con trick, one which you have hinted at in your second paragraph.

 

 

Is paying £80 a month when you're on £30k a year affordable, or is £30k too moderate to be able to make that kind of repayment?

Plus, how is this linked to poverty? The only link I can see is that scaremongering will induce kids from poor backgrounds to stay there.

Edited May 25, 2019 by Voice of reason

[apelike 10]

With all this talk about poverty on SF it make me wonder just how many on here have actually experienced real poverty and not just relative poverty?

[Voice of reason 0]

37 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

Both, I think, as well as being deprived of it by the 'sanction'.

 

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation say that one of the main causes of 'destitution' is "Low benefit levels, benefit sanctions, and delays in receiving benefits - sometimes a lack of eligibility for benefits at all", and suggest that one of the ways to reduce destitution would be to "Change how sanctions are used within Universal Credit so that people are not left destitute by design".

 

See here: https://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/what-destitution which also defines 'destitution' (basically being unable to afford food and/or shelter).

 

In this report they reckon that around 1.5 million people, including 300,000 children, experienced 'destitution' at some point during 2017 (plus or minus 20% - it's hard to measure).  This was down by 25% from 2015 due, they say, to a less stringent application of sanctions with respect to JSA, but they worry that harsh application of sanctions to UC will lead to a reversal of the trend.

I can see that when you're living hand to mouth, on low income or benefits, that a delay when moving onto them, or sanctions would hit hard. I'd say that needs addressing, but also, I suppose sanctions have to exist to prevent abuse. I don't know the solution to that one.

[Voice of reason 0]

15 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

I guess that's a decision that we have to make as a society.  Which is the higher priority?  Shaving a few million off the welfare budget, or preventing a few hundred thousand children falling into destitution?

 

I'm not sure that most people who get sanctioned are trying to abuse the system anyway.  People who know more about this (e.g. @Bob Arctor) can correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that sanctions are often for things like not turning up to an appointment, or not making the requisite number of job applications, not for attempted fraud.  [In my experience, the best way to land a job is to make one or two well researched and carefully worded applications, not to submit dozens of half-baked ones.  Quality, not quantity.]

 

Plus the JRF say that many people who fall into destitution have 'complex needs', and may not be in a position to comply with those rules anyway.

It's not shaving a few million off the budget though. If no sanctions existed there would be much more widespread abuse. People working and claiming without consequence. The millions would turn into billions.

The kids caught up in it are my biggest concern too.

Yes, lots of claimants will have alcohol, drug or mental illness issues, meaning they struggle with appointments, budgeting , holding down a job etc I have a friend in that situation. But also increasing the money they receive wouldn't necessarily help. Some people will always struggle.

[willman 10]

18 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

I guess that's a decision that we have to make as a society.  Which is the higher priority?  Shaving a few million off the welfare budget, or preventing a few hundred thousand children falling into destitution?

 

I'm not sure that most people who get sanctioned are trying to abuse the system anyway.  People who know more about this (e.g. @Bob Arctor) can correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that sanctions are often for things like not turning up to an appointment, or not making the requisite number of job applications, not for attempted fraud.  [In my experience, the best way to land a job is to make one or two well researched and carefully worded applications, not to submit dozens of half-baked ones.  Quality, not quantity.]

 

Plus the JRF say that many people who fall into destitution have 'complex needs', and may not be in a position to comply with those rules anyway.

I was sanctioned and lost a weeks money for insufficient job  searches and apps - in fairness though the job centre staff gave me more than enough chances to adjust the paperwork that i had filled in, so that i did do an adequate amount of searching.

[Mister M 1,608]

3 hours ago, Voice of reason said:

It's not shaving a few million off the budget though. If no sanctions existed there would be much more widespread abuse. People working and claiming without consequence. The millions would turn into billions.

The kids caught up in it are my biggest concern too.

Yes, lots of claimants will have alcohol, drug or mental illness issues, meaning they struggle with appointments, budgeting , holding down a job etc I have a friend in that situation. But also increasing the money they receive wouldn't necessarily help. Some people will always struggle.

In spite of this benefit fraud is much lower than tax fraud. 

What is often not reported is that there is a huge amount of money in benefits, running into the many billions, that goes unclaimed each year. This contradicts the idea that benefit claimants are generally grasping and dishonest.

Edited May 26, 2019 by Mister M

[Voice of reason 0]

56 minutes ago, Mister M said:

In spite of this benefit fraud is much lower than tax fraud. 

What is often not reported is that there is a huge amount of money in benefits, running into the many billions, that goes unclaimed each year. This contradicts the idea that benefit claimants are generally grasping and dishonest.

Tax fraud needs tackling, for sure. Everyone needs to pay their way. It isn't a one thing or the other situation.

I certainly don't think benefit claimants are generally grasping / dishonest. Some are, most want to improve their lot. I want money to be targeted to people who need it. That money comes from my and your taxes and needs to be used wisely and appropriately.

21 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

 

And did you find submitting lots of applications helpful in finding a job?  Like I say, I'd find it more of a hindrance.  I'd prefer to devote the time to making a few good applications, rather than lots of mediocre or inappropriate ones.  That's always worked for me anyway (touch wood).  But that might just be me, or the kind of jobs I'd be applying for.

Are you talking about moving / imroving job applications, or getting off the dole job applications?

[Voice of reason 0]

22 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

I guess the problem is that if you create a hostile environment for the few, you also create a hostile environment for the many.  With the result that hundreds of thousands of people who do want to improve their lot end up facing destitution (according to the JRF).

 

That's a fair point that could raise several interesting questions.  It's true that I've never been on the dole, and it's said that it's easier to get a job if you already have one.  I still think I'd find work more quickly with a few targeted applications than lots of random ones, but I don't know for sure.

It shouldn't be hostile, but I think the system should be clearly an emergency net, not a long term thing. Obviously disability issues are different.

Yes, moving job is easier than getting into one from unemployment. I must admit to struggling with the fact we are crying out for labour, hence migration filling the gap, yet there are people who seem not to be able to find work. I really want people who need help to receive it, and at the same time making sure we all contribute.

[Cyclone 10]

13 hours ago, Voice of reason said:

It shouldn't be hostile, but I think the system should be clearly an emergency net, not a long term thing. Obviously disability issues are different.

Yes, moving job is easier than getting into one from unemployment. I must admit to struggling with the fact we are crying out for labour, hence migration filling the gap, yet there are people who seem not to be able to find work. I really want people who need help to receive it, and at the same time making sure we all contribute.

How many people are on long term unemployed benefits?

[Voice of reason 0]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

How many people are on long term unemployed benefits?

Don't know, why? What point are you making?

 

[Cyclone 10]

Well you seem to be concerned about them gaming the system and taking without ever contributing.  But surely you need to know the scale of the problem if it's something that bothers you.