[Wills2]

Originally Posted by JD6

That’s not a great starting salary for 1992 when you consider that the minimum wage (admittedly for a 25 year old) is about £17k from next April (£8.21 x 40 x 52). The rate of progression is pretty decent though.

I agree completely that you have to get out there and work.

For me it's not the starting salary that is important but the opportunity for progression I had friends that started on double that yet still only earn 30-40k today, better to go for the opportunity to work your way up to a 100k+ job which took me another 5 years than take a better starting salary in a dead end job or one that pays little regardless of your progression.

[Craig-SM]

A mate of mine was on the dole for a while. Whilst he was unemployed he got reduced gas and electric tariffs, central heating and radiators fitted throughout, double glazing, wall insulation and clothes vouchers which was supposed to buy a suit for an interview but didn’t.
There were other reductions he got too from getting benefits but in the end he was bored so got a job again.

[zofinger]

Youngsters, I imagine, have very high expectations of themselves (driven by the fact they read on social media however everyone else is happy and rich - btw, they're not) and unless they feel they're going to get there, they give up trying. "What's the point of getting on the bottom rung of a ladder when you can earn as much money on the dole".

People of an older generation had less expectations both of themselves and placed upon them. As such, started 'any' job and either progressed or moved sideways to then move up as they found something they enjoyed/and or their skills matched. They knew one day they’ll get there.

It's a complex issue but boiling it down, for me it's social media at its worse (there's plenty of good things about it) and an over generous benefits system which is now seen as a lifestyle choice. Back in the 1990's being on the dole was generally a safety net and something you didn't go around telling people you were on. Now people go on TV not only admitting they're on it, but also having the temerity to complain when it gets cut or isn't enough!

[Consett Mag]

I'm disappointed to hear that the careers adviser was so weak OP. That's not good.

There's definitely a core group of people who will simply not help themselves with hard work and determination, but instead rely on the benefits system to carry them throughout their lives. I had thought the tories were dealing with this issue.

But there does seem to be a reliance now on food banks throughout the nation. So are benefits being given out liberally to savvy career scroungers but missing out some bone fide claimants?

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by JD6

You're only a few years older than me so I'm amazed by that starting salary. I got a fair bit more than that as a grant while studying for a masters degree (£8k per year from memory) plus all fees paid.

That was 1985. It went to just under 20k and a company car by 1989...40k by 96...a bit more now.

I grew up in a mining community, but was always taught that if I put in the effort in I could do better (although maybe not earn more!) - my Dad was sent down the out as a Bevin boy in the war, and made a career, ending as a mining engineer.

I don't really understand people who just want to get by, why wouldn't you want to have a good life even if it takes effort....

[1 AKY]

Originally Posted by Harryg

He said his pension covers the rent and rates and he has the state pension to live on, his next door neighbour never worked in his life gets rent and rates paid for and is better off than him as he gets all sorts of benefits, so why work that's the attitude of a lot of people these days.

This sort of stuff really angers me and sometimes I think we should scrap the benefits system. Needs a complete overhaul. With exceptions for health etc., nobody on benefits should be better off than somebody in work.

[scotgc]

Originally Posted by 1 AKY

This sort of stuff really angers me and sometimes I think we should scrap the benefits system. Needs a complete overhaul. With exceptions for health etc., nobody on benefits should be better off than somebody in work.

I'll vote for you !

[InquisitiveA]

Originally Posted by Consett Mag

But there does seem to be a reliance now on food banks throughout the nation. So are benefits being given out liberally to savvy career scroungers but missing out some bone fide claimants?

There are food banks, but there are no ***/beer banks.

So the rational scrounger will spend their money on beer and ****, then plead poverty at the food bank and get given food for free. Much better than spending dole money on food and going without beer/****.

Edit - it seems the American forum doesn't like the British slang for cigarettes!

[TouringPleb]

Originally Posted by zofinger

Youngsters, I imagine, have very high expectations of themselves (driven by the fact they read on social media however everyone else is happy and rich - btw, they're not) and unless they feel they're going to get there, they give up trying. "What's the point of getting on the bottom rung of a ladder when you can earn as much money on the dole".

People of an older generation had less expectations both of themselves and placed upon them. As such, started 'any' job and either progressed or moved sideways to then move up as they found something they enjoyed/and or their skills matched. They knew one day they'll get there.

It's a complex issue but boiling it down, for me it's social media at its worse (there's plenty of good things about it) and an over generous benefits system which is now seen as a lifestyle choice. Back in the 1990's being on the dole was generally a safety net and something you didn't go around telling people you were on. Now people go on TV not only admitting they're on it, but also having the temerity to complain when it gets cut or isn't enough!

I was talking to some teenagers recently, generally decent people just involved in a little low level anti-social behaviour as they were bored.

Asked them why bored, of course they have no jobs. Why, well, between the East Europeans taking them all apparently, it wasn't worth them working. One of them told me he'd worked out what he needed to earn to pay rent, run a car, mobile phone, Sky subscription, going out etc and he reckoned he needed to earn about 45k a year to pay for all this.

He was 19! I tried explaining he would never get that wage as first job, but maybe if he lowered his expectations, got a job for 15-17k and then if he worked hard he could earn overtime and get promoted. He wasn't interested. It was easier for him to do nothing, claim benefits and blame the Polish.

[zofinger]

Originally Posted by TouringPleb

...
One of them told me he'd worked out what he needed to earn to pay rent, run a car, mobile phone, Sky subscription, going out etc and he reckoned he needed to earn about 45k a year to pay for all this...

What has happened for some young people (or anyone!) to dare to consider those material items as essential and that if they can't have them from day 1...then they'd rather not work. At 19 they need their own space either in the form of a car or place to live in order to start getting some independance. Don't need Sky, don't need to go out (lots) etc. and a mobile phone contract with decent minutes/data can be obtained for £10/month. Never been cheaper.

[Harryg]

Originally Posted by TouringPleb

I was talking to some teenagers recently, generally decent people just involved in a little low level anti-social behaviour as they were bored.

Asked them why bored, of course they have no jobs. Why, well, between the East Europeans taking them all apparently, it wasn't worth them working. One of them told me he'd worked out what he needed to earn to pay rent, run a car, mobile phone, Sky subscription, going out etc and he reckoned he needed to earn about 45k a year to pay for all this.

He was 19! I tried explaining he would never get that wage as first job, but maybe if he lowered his expectations, got a job for 15-17k and then if he worked hard he could earn overtime and get promoted. He wasn't interested. It was easier for him to do nothing, claim benefits and blame the Polish.

When you look at these people and they give you the tales of needing this and that and what is needed in monetary terms to achieve this and then say what's the point of working its better to claim benefits, so he seems to have all of this already and you certainly don't get 45K off the benefits system so where are they getting the cash from if he has no incentive to work he must be getting funding from somewhere?

[zofinger]

Originally Posted by Harryg

When you look at these people and they give you the tales of needing this and that and what is needed in monetary terms to achieve this and then say what's the point of working its better to claim benefits, so he seems to have all of this already and you certainly don't get 45K off the benefits system so where are they getting the cash from if he has no incentive to work he must be getting funding from somewhere?

Obvious answer would be he hasn’t left the family home.

[Kal101]

The trouble with the system as I see it

The state makes it financially better for potential low income earners to stay at home and claim benefits

There’s no disincentive for those that don’t want to work

It’s relatively easy to play the system.

People want a champagne lifestyle on beer money and there a lot more of the entitled generations who “ must have and need” a lot of essentially luxury items.

There are children growing up for whom living on benefits as opposed to working is the norm and that’s what they aspire to.

It’s easy to blame others eg the Eastern European’s, high cost of housing etc etc - reality is there’s plenty that regard going out to work as a mugs game.

[Cootie]

Whilst there is undoubtedly a broader revisiting of the benefits system required there are, I think, a few things that might help address the situation you describe. I will say at the outset that I'm a firm believer that the benefit system is a necessary safety net for those who fall on hard times, but it shouldn't be one that is either subject to abuse, or dis-incentivises work. As such I'd like to see:

1) Re-balancing of the tax system by increasing the tax-free allowance to £15000 and ultimately c.£18000 - this would allow people to earn £1200-1500 per month without their income being directly taxed. This may necessitate some rebalancing of thresholds and rates further up the line, but should be done with the intent of being broadly tax neutral to the majority of the population. There should be benefits to be derived from reduced benefits payments and the extra VAT etc that could be yielded from these individuals having more disposable income;

2) Link benefits eligibility to people undertaking work in the community, which would bring both a societal benefit, plus create less of a differential between life on benefits (i.e. not sat on the sofa watching Sky/Netflix) and paid employment, helping people to more readily mentally transition between the two.


Anyway, that's my two-cents worth...

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Cootie

Whilst there is undoubtedly a broader revisiting of the benefits system required there are, I think, a few things that might help address the situation you describe. I will say at the outset that I'm a firm believer that the benefit system is a necessary safety net for those who fall on hard times, but it shouldn't be one that is either subject to abuse, or dis-incentivises work. As such I'd like to see:

1) Re-balancing of the tax system by increasing the tax-free allowance to £15000 and ultimately c.£18000 - this would allow people to earn £1200-1500 per month without their income being directly taxed. This may necessitate some rebalancing of thresholds and rates further up the line, but should be done with the intent of being broadly tax neutral to the majority of the population. There should be benefits to be derived from reduced benefits payments and the extra VAT etc that could be yielded from these individuals having more disposable income;

2) Link benefits eligibility to people undertaking work in the community, which would bring both a societal benefit, plus create less of a differential between life on benefits (i.e. not sat on the sofa watching Sky/Netflix) and paid employment, helping people to more readily mentally transition between the two.


Anyway, that's my two-cents worth...

I'll vote for you..

[Cootie]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I'll vote for you..

Cheers. Just frustrates me that all the political parties seem to be obsessing (other than Brexit...) about ideological posturing rather than considering practical policies that would make a difference to the country...

[TouringPleb]

Unemployed, partner unemployed. 4 kids and spends 18 quid a DAY on scratch cards!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art....html#comments

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Cootie

Whilst there is undoubtedly a broader revisiting of the benefits system required there are, I think, a few things that might help address the situation you describe. I will say at the outset that I'm a firm believer that the benefit system is a necessary safety net for those who fall on hard times, but it shouldn't be one that is either subject to abuse, or dis-incentivises work. As such I'd like to see:

1) Re-balancing of the tax system by increasing the tax-free allowance to £15000 and ultimately c.£18000 - this would allow people to earn £1200-1500 per month without their income being directly taxed. This may necessitate some rebalancing of thresholds and rates further up the line, but should be done with the intent of being broadly tax neutral to the majority of the population. There should be benefits to be derived from reduced benefits payments and the extra VAT etc that could be yielded from these individuals having more disposable income;

2) Link benefits eligibility to people undertaking work in the community, which would bring both a societal benefit, plus create less of a differential between life on benefits (i.e. not sat on the sofa watching Sky/Netflix) and paid employment, helping people to more readily mentally transition between the two.


Anyway, that's my two-cents worth...

I like it. But, all ideals have holes in them. Who pays for childcare while people are undertaking work in the community for benefits? The taxpayer can be the only answer.

Needs some balancing of the books before it gets implemented, but, we've got to start somewhere, better than what we've got now.

[jnismith]

Sadly from working at Citizens Advice, I know more then I ever ever wanted to know about the benefits system.

But a few points

1. Although rent can be paid, a single person lives on £73.10 per week. If you are under 35, you can only rent a room in a shared house. Btw, the £73.10 has to cover your food,clothes, travel (incl to the job centre and most interviews)

2. housing benefit, whether part of Universal Credit or paid on its own had been frozen for years while rents go up. Most estate agents will not take people who are on any sort of benefits. Therefore you will end up living in unlicensed properties.

3. You can make a significant and good living out of living on benefits. To do this, you need children with disabilities, they are a really good earner for you. You need to work a certain number of hours, probably at minimum wage, claim housing benefit and spend your time making sure that your disabled children are getting everything they can.

In my four years doing this, I have met probably 500 families struggling with the intricate rules and living on the breadline and about 1 ( yes one) who had got it sussed and were making a good living out of benefits, Sadly, the Dad spent his time driving his kids from various hospitals to doctors and the mother tried her hardest to get the others to school as they seemed to get moved every year.

Seriously, it is always better to get a job and try at least to better yourself. Otherwise you will be ground into to the ground.

[TouringPleb]

Originally Posted by jnismith

Sadly from working at Citizens Advice, I know more then I ever ever wanted to know about the benefits system.

But a few points

1. Although rent can be paid, a single person lives on £73.10 per week. If you are under 35, you can only rent a room in a shared house. Btw, the £73.10 has to cover your food,clothes, travel (incl to the job centre and most interviews)

2. housing benefit, whether part of Universal Credit or paid on its own had been frozen for years while rents go up. Most estate agents will not take people who are on any sort of benefits. Therefore you will end up living in unlicensed properties.

3. You can make a significant and good living out of living on benefits. To do this, you need children with disabilities, they are a really good earner for you. You need to work a certain number of hours, probably at minimum wage, claim housing benefit and spend your time making sure that your disabled children are getting everything they can.

In my four years doing this, I have met probably 500 families struggling with the intricate rules and living on the breadline and about 1 ( yes one) who had got it sussed and were making a good living out of benefits, Sadly, the Dad spent his time driving his kids from various hospitals to doctors and the mother tried her hardest to get the others to school as they seemed to get moved every year.

Seriously, it is always better to get a job am try at leat to better yourself. Otherwise you will. Be ground into to the ground.

Your third point probably explains why so many parents are desperate to get labels on children who in our day would have just been called naughty or difficult.

[Kal101]

Originally Posted by TouringPleb

Your third point probably explains why so many parents are desperate to get labels on children who in our day would have just been called naughty or difficult.

Originally Posted by jnismith

Sadly from working at Citizens Advice, I know more then I ever ever wanted to know about the benefits system.

But a few points

1. Although rent can be paid, a single person lives on £73.10 per week. If you are under 35, you can only rent a room in a shared house. Btw, the £73.10 has to cover your food,clothes, travel (incl to the job centre and most interviews)

2. housing benefit, whether part of Universal Credit or paid on its own had been frozen for years while rents go up. Most estate agents will not take people who are on any sort of benefits. Therefore you will end up living in unlicensed properties.

3. You can make a significant and good living out of living on benefits. To do this, you need children with disabilities, they are a really good earner for you. You need to work a certain number of hours, probably at minimum wage, claim housing benefit and spend your time making sure that your disabled children are getting everything they can.

In my four years doing this, I have met probably 500 families struggling with the intricate rules and living on the breadline and about 1 ( yes one) who had got it sussed and were making a good living out of benefits, Sadly, the Dad spent his time driving his kids from various hospitals to doctors and the mother tried her hardest to get the others to school as they seemed to get moved every year.

Seriously, it is always better to get a job and try at least to better yourself. Otherwise you will be ground into to the ground.

Wonder if this is linked to the increase in adhd type medication I’m seeing being issued and the increased no of mobility scooters.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by TouringPleb

Your third point probably explains why so many parents are desperate to get labels on children who in our day would have just been called naughty or difficult.

Indeed. I have been debating the pros and cons of Brexit / economic growth with a 30 year old - who is full time carer for her epileptic hubbie who works every day. They might happen to have an autistic child...