Poverty

Wallace1492

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185

How a family struggles by on benefits.

clarkey cat

24
cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large
pouch of tobacco

= about £84.20 a week....?

jds_1981

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.'

jds_1981

clarkey cat wrote:

24
cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large
pouch of tobacco

= about £84.20 a week....?

Is that coming from the JSA, or the child benefit thehn?

The Rookie

About that, yes........

Sky TV £15/week????

School trips = free on benefits in most areas as well.....

Clearly the proposed cap is too generous.

Simon

iPete

clarkey cat wrote:

24
cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large
pouch of tobacco

= about £84.20 a week....?

They could easily save that, especially with sky @ £15 per week!

Its not like they have day jobs to concentrate on, might as well spend some time penny pinching at the supermarket!

Monkeypump

Cut out the fags, booze and Sky - all of which are luxuries - and they'd probably save most of the £80-odd potential cut.

The Rookie

Besides £240/week on groceries????

We spend about £80/4, so no way they need to spend that much, many instant meals no doubt despite the fact they have all the time in the world to cook.....

Simon

DonDaddyD

I can't decide whether this article is deliberately inflamatory or not. Not all families on benefits that will feel the sting of the cap smoke, drink alcohol, have Sky, mobile phone contracts or entertainment/holidays.

Ms DDD would argue why can't people have these things/it's not down to us to decide how they spend their benefits.

My argument would be that the very fact that they are able to spend so much on luxuries suggests that we are giving them too much.

Another point is that people like this are completely dependent on the benefits. The sheer notion to them that Sky et al isn't an entitlement and that they may have to go without is unthinkable. It's not their teenage kids that are spoiled, it's the parents. I mean they can't actually afford any of the luxuries (A luxury = traditionally things you'd treat yourself with with money left over from your earned income/salary after all the bills are paid) as they're on benefits.

Wallace1492

The Beginner wrote:

Besides £240/week on groceries????

We spend about £80/4, so no way they need to spend that much, many instant meals no doubt despite the fact they have all the time in the world to cook.....

Simon

More than half of that on the necessary booze and tobacco.

Can't believe taht no-one has suggested they get a bike to save on the £30 a week bus fares! That is the easiest save there.

iPete

Go without Sky TV, cigarettes and booze; can't deice what side that falls on..

DonDaddyD

The Beginner wrote:

Besides £240/week on groceries????

We spend about £80/4, so no way they need to spend that much, many instant meals no doubt despite the fact they have all the time in the world to cook.....

Simon

I give Ms DDD £120 a month for food (me and her). This may have to increase to £150.

The babies food and nappies comes out of the Child Benefit, which isn't included.

jds_1981

Wallace1492 wrote:

Can't believe taht no-one has suggested they get a bike to save on the £30 a week bus fares! That is the easiest save there.

Problem is the upfront cost..

bompington

I'm a little bit intrigued at "educational software writer": is it such a specialised job that it has now disappeared from the planet like pinsetters, lamplighters and lectors? The IT world may not be the gravy train it has been at times, but there are plenty of jobs that any competent programmer (I presume that's what "software writer" means) could get. Although finding one that pays £30k mightn't be so easy...

As for the luxuries:
200 death sticks: £64
24 cans of wee: £17
Tobacco: £5
Total saved so far: £86, and don't get me started on Sky.

I can only guess that the Beeb found this lot as an example of the deserving poor...


And as for

DDD wrote:

it's not down to us to decide how they spend their benefits

Arrange the following words into a well known phrase or saying:
piper calls the he pays tune who the

gtvlusso

Hmmm - Raymond's family live in a bigger house than my family do. Admittedly, we only have 1 kid in the house, now, but we are debating numero due because of space and cost (buying a bigger house!)...are we too sensible?!

Or, what we could do is just go nuts and breed like rabbit's. Then get you lot to pay the difference.......

The Rookie

I think that is unfair on DDD, it is not for us to decide, however he makes the point the rest of us are that the amount they spend on what most would consider luxuries means they have too much in the first place.

Simon

tgotb

I have to say, if I was stuck at home all day with nothing to entertain myself but Sky TV, I'd probably turn the TV off and try out one of the money-making wheezes I think of from time to time but never have time to try out. Plenty of things you can do with minimal or no start-up cost, especially if you have internet access and lots of free time.

It would be very tempting, if one of those schemes was successful, to continue claiming benefits. Even if you did that, I suspect it would still be of net benefit to the economy...

bompington

DonDaddyD wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Besides £240/week on groceries????

We spend about £80/4, so no way they need to spend that much, many instant meals no doubt despite the fact they have all the time in the world to cook.....

Simon

I give Ms DDD £120 a month for food (me and her). This may have to increase to £150.

The babies food and nappies comes out of the Child Benefit, which isn't included.

£350 a month (i.e. about £80/week) for 5 of us, and that includes nappies etc. And we consider that we eat quite a lot of luxuries, and more ready-made stuff than we would do if Mrs Bomp didn't work.

Paulie W

It's a slightly mischevious piece because it initially appears to be an article about the hardships of those on benefits then inlcudes these throwaway (out of context) comments about mobiles, cigarettes and Sky TV which are guaranteed to raise the heckles of 'good honest working people'!

bompington

The Beginner wrote:

I think that is unfair on DDD, it is not for us to decide, however he makes the point the rest of us are that the amount they spend on what most would consider luxuries means they have too much in the first place.

Simon

Fair enough

DDD's missus (allegedly) wrote:

nicey middle class guilt stuff

rjsterry

TBF, I think I'd need to drink more and start smoking with 7 teenagers in the house :shock:

jzed

Arrrggghhhhh. Whilst I sympathised with the woman in the W1 post this bloke just winds me up. Lost a job in 2001, in some area where there is no market. In the last ten years he's never thought about retraining, getting a job outside his area of expertise. We've been through a boom, low unemployment and you sat on your ar53 watched sky, had a shed load of kids and bled the benefits system.

I struggle with the mentality of people having loads of kids and expecting the state to pay for them. Surely a rational person would want the best for their kids and be out there doing whatever it takes to get a job (10 years is a long time), rather than complaining they are living in a cramped house.

rick_chasey

£240 on shopping a week?

Eh?

notsoblue

Is the situation these people are in an attractive one to everyone here though? I mean, personally, I'd find it a bit of a wretched, depressing existence. I find it interesting that the natural reaction to this kind of story is apparently to snipe at their "luxuries" (Sky TV and cigarettes?! How the other half live...) rather than to question why they're even in that situation in the first place. There aren't that many low skilled jobs in North Wales that will pay someone enough to support a family that large without government support. Though having said that the couple did have a child after being unemployed for 6 years. That does say something about their sense of personal responsibility.

The general point that this raises for me is that money paid out in benefits like this isn't a very good investment given that it simply sustains a pretty bad quality of life rather than giving someone assistance to elevate themselves.

rjsterry

JZed wrote:

Arrrggghhhhh. Whilst I sympathised with the woman in the W1 post this bloke just winds me up. Lost a job in 2001, in some area where there is no market. In the last ten years he's never thought about retraining, getting a job outside his area of expertise. We've been through a boom, low unemployment and you sat on your ar53 watched sky, had a shed load of kids and bled the benefits system.

I struggle with the mentality of people having loads of kids and expecting the state to pay for them. Surely a rational person would want the best for their kids and be out there doing whatever it takes to get a job (10 years is a long time), rather than complaining they are living in a cramped house.

I did find that bit odd: really, you couldn't find ANY IT job with at least some skills overlap in 10 years of looking? Nothing at all?

Not sure the last child is proof of anything - might not have been planned.

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Besides £240/week on groceries????

We spend about £80/4, so no way they need to spend that much, many instant meals no doubt despite the fact they have all the time in the world to cook.....

Simon

I give Ms DDD £120 a month for food (me and her). This may have to increase to £150.

The babies food and nappies comes out of the Child Benefit, which isn't included.

How much does she charge you for looking after your kid?!

kamiokande

....On the cigarettes, my wife tried to give up, but she missed one appointment on the course and they threw her off it.'

This seems to be the attitude of many people these days - no personal responsibility at all.

Gazzaputt

I really cannot see how a the word poverty can be used whilst quoting Sky TV , 24 cans of lager and 200 fags.

These people will never know the real meaning of the word even with this benefit cap.

I'll substitute the word 'poverty' with the phrase 'going with out non essentials that will have no effect on your well being'.

£26k is ample.

clarkey cat

NSB - I don't think anyone (well I'm certainly not) is suggesting that their position is envious or at all desirable. What is being called into question is that question of priorities

This family could be, by my calculations a cool £600 a month better off if they cut the Sky, booze, fags, excessive grocery shopping and mobile phones. With that money they could spend it on retraining the husband, educating the kids... that may even do something for their self-esteem and alleviating the wretchedness of their condition.

Now stop being such a big pinko or I'll get W1 to come and spank you.

notsoblue

clarkey cat wrote:

NSB - I don't think anyone (well I'm certainly not) is suggesting that their position is envious or at all desirable. What is being called into question is that question of priorities

This family could be, by my calculations a cool £600 a month better off if they cut the Sky, booze, fags, excessive grocery shopping and mobile phones. With that money they could spend it on retraining the husband, educating the kids... that may even do something for their self-esteem and alleviating the wretchedness of their condition.

Now stop being such a big pinko or I'll get W1 to come and spank you.

Yeah, I don't disagree with you. My (badly made) point was that the anger/indignation is misplaced. We could reduce these people's benefits until they had to sell their kids to a glue factory, and there would still be people lacking the personal responsibility and self respect to bring themselves off of benefits. The problem is always framed as being one of the government being too generous. I'm suggesting that the problem may be that in certain situations the current framework gives money away without any expectation of a return.

The issue with this chap seems to be that theres no suitable local employment and he's too low skilled to be able to relocate. Money spent on keeping him stuck in north wales with no job or future would be better spent on increasing employment prospects in his area or upskilling him. Of course, the real world is more complicated than that, but when stories like this are in the media people just fall over themselves to condemn and criticise before eventually getting bored and forgetting about it until the next time they happen to catch Jeremy Kyle.

notsoblue

And another thing...

Personally I just don't like the fact that these kind of people are occaisionally paraded through the market square and put in stocks for the "Squeezed middle" to throw veg at. I think it just serves to make people feel better about themselves to see others that are considered to be lazy dole scum. In the same way that bankers are scapegoated every now and again. Taking away a knighthood, or putting in place a HB cap to chuck a few Zone 1 benefit scroungers into Newham sink estates is easier for politicians to achieve than a reform of a system that generates appalling inequality with outrageous salaries on one end of the scale and chronically indolent dole scum on the other...