02/02/2012 10:14 am
People have different views about welfare reform, benefits and how people live on benefits. I cite the following case below and ask what typical level of benefit (exclusive of housing costs) SHOULD exist for ….
gas (heating/hot water)
other expenses (transport, insurance, communications, etc.)
a) someone (say, of my age -- that’s 61 in July), single and who is disabled
b) someone single not disabled
c) per child of a single parent family
d) per child of a 2 parent family.
REAL LIFE CASE ….
Working age disabled person allocated £40-53 to live on for a week including costs of :
gas (heating/hot water)
transport to and from doctors (twice)
Transport to and from hospital (twice),
NOT EXACTLY A KING’S RANSOM or even generous is it?
THE GAS EXPENDITURE WAS REDUCED TO ZERO, A GENUINE CASE OF HEAT OR EAT! And it’s sub-zero temperatures here in leafy Cheshire.
Yet the local MP got the lion’s share of £200,000 for HIS expenses last year.
Sort: Newest first | Oldest first
20/02/2012 9:49 am
Rick 4:41 am
"Some interesting points made in the various posts but nobody has really answered how much a person should have to live on (excluding housing costs).
IS £40-53 emough then?"
Have you ever thought of asking your Housing Association Ceo or director or any Housing Association ceo or director?... If, for example and example only, suddenly he or she is sacked (for drugs dealings or incompetence or any other very serious matter) and all his or her assets are seized, how much would he/she need to live on?... I think he or she would find your guess of £40-53 pw quite offensive.
20/02/2012 9:55 am
I answered it!
In London £8.30 per hour.
Outside of London £7.20
As I say, these figures are based on research into minimum income standards and still don't leave any leeway but let people get by without getting into debt and ill health where possible.
And to remind anyone that wants to criticise these figures as absurd - this is based on research conducted with the British public.
Having said all that, I still couldn't live on those amount and many others wouldn't so it just shows just how little some people have to live on..
20/02/2012 10:20 am
Cause for celebration - Rick is still with us.
I'm so pleased to know you are still in the land of the living Rick. I was honestly beginning to fear the worst, and such a loss that would be.
I was also hoping you'd be back on-line before I put out my flame at the end of this week (other time demands arising for a while, but then the odd alter-ego will still be able to pop up every now and again, and I did announce that this hot little chap could only ever last till Spring - well the bulbs are coming up in Somerset at least!)
Thanks for making my week already Rick, simply by still breathing!
20/02/2012 2:42 pm
Anon at 9-44am -- the Chief Exec tells me that he puts a lot more in his car a week than £40-53 ... we had the conversation about 3 weeks ago.
Anon at 9-55am-- I saw your amount but then as I was asking about benefits for the disabled and those not working then at an hoursly rate, they'd get nowt.
C233 -- very kind of you to say so -- my minders were doublful as to whether I was fir enough to return just yet but as I was at the pub (with goddaughter -- who is a 'minder' and granddaughter -- who has become a 'minder') they didn't need much convincing but in exchange I have to keep to a strict regime. If the worse came to the worst then there would be info put on here by minders.
20/02/2012 3:06 pm
May your minders begat further minders who too begat minders of their own, until their enough minders to get rid of the bloody Arthur Daley figure pretending to run the country!
[tell your minders they are very special people, and much loved for all that they do.]
20/02/2012 3:21 pm
Unfortunately or fortunately the two (of eight) minders will not be begatting in the biblical sense for diverse reasons BUT without my cajoling have come to the same conclusion about the government -- neither of then have voted before (one 'couldn't be bothered' and is 21 a week today whilst the other was 18 last month).
They will both be voting next time round -- they will vote for whoever but the 3 main parties do not figure high on their list of favourites but are higher on their preferred lists than the extremist parties.
They are both popular, strong minded and intelligent vocal women with friends of a similar nature -- there's a number of them who will be voting for the first time next time round ... that's around 40 new votes not going to the sitting MP
20/02/2012 3:50 pm
An interesting thought that when the sitting MP next comes to stand they may not be returned to sitting once more because of the poor standing the appalling position, that they fell in behind, gave them.
All that is needed is a cast iron pledge from any who are standing who, when sitting, may be held to and deliver in the interest of the everyday folk who entrusted them with their vote in the first place.
Perhaps this trusting to representatives has done its day and we should all just take power as Jono keep asking us to do, although who would look out for the less strong in that set up.
In the words of my election trainer many years ago - tell your voters to vote early and vote often!
20/02/2012 3:58 pm
Methinx we had the same trainer or maybe we just happen to have a social conscience;
Back on topic -- if it is the case that a single pensioner needs £140 or so a week to live on, (EXCLUDING housing costs), it is perhaps reasonable for a similar sum to be required by a disabled person.
I heard a suggestion recently that a standard national rate should be set for housing costs at no more than £20 per bedroom additional to £100 for a 1 bedroom property.
20/02/2012 4:12 pm
Perhaps looking it the other way around. If the government says it can not afford to pay the rent of someone such that they have more than £70 per week to live on how do they expect anyone, disabled or otherwise, to afford to pay the high rents the government are now sponsoring but will not make affordable. As rent is now the highest single element within a low income person's expenditure (just think, that used to be food, then fuel, then housing cost) then failing to enable a person to afford such a basic expense means that the person concerned will not be able to afford to live in this society.
Oddly, in a third world society, where fuel may be gathered for free, food may be gleaned from the countryside without landlowners demanding arrests be made, and housing may be self built without accusations of squatting or failure to pay the planning department enough, people can live on lower sums. Expecting people here to live on such sums is just not practical without also granting the freedom to return to being hunter gatherers as well.
20/02/2012 4:41 pm
I wonder how governments figure out what people need to live on and if anyone knows where the data can be found, providing of course, that it is in an understandable form and easy to access.
20/02/2012 5:28 pm
They gather together their pocket change at a cabinet meeting and then divide the sum by the number of unemployed, pensioners and persons with disabilities, subtract 50% to take into account single parents and those under 35, subtract 10% of the remainder for teas and biscuits (rechargeable of course), and then the resulting figure is the daily sum for an average family of four to live on.
To get the individual person rate, simply deduct the current child benefit payment value and then divide by 100 and times by 65 to get what an individual needs.
However, it must be noted that the contents of Mr Pickles pockets are for the exclusive use of those who are poor but located in Birmingham.
20/02/2012 5:35 pm
Apparently the £40-53 is because the amount cannot be more than 60% of the amount the government says is needed to live on.
A fortnight previously, the tenant was allowed £89-99 to live on with lower projected expenditure on gas for heating.
I just can't work the maths out -- but then, I'm not an acolyte nor an apologist!
Perhaps if claimants prayed before evey claim then things would work better.