CH4 to pay claimants £26K benefits in one annual lump sum.

CH4 to pay claimants £26K benefits in one annual lump sum.

Author
Discussion

55palfers

Original Poster:

5,893 posts

163 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3429613/Ma...

I can't see this working too well!

If they did get a job within a month or so, what are the chances of getting the money back do you think?

theboss

6,878 posts

218 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
It can't work. There may be a minority who might harness the advantage of a lump sum and make it last the year, but I should think a vast majority will have nothing within 6 months at which point they'll be needing further 'emergency' hand-outs because the children are starving, etc.

It would be interesting to see an equivalent production whereby the 'typical' PHer as depicted on the recent thread, was given his annual net salary in one lump sum.

randlemarcus

13,507 posts

230 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
This actually looks interesting. Will be fascinated to see how many dodgy franchises/pub tenancies are purchased.

trickywoo

11,705 posts

229 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
theboss said:
I should think a vast majority will have nothing within 6 months.
6 months? 6 weeks more likely.

W00DY

15,467 posts

225 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
This is going to be an objective look into the difficulties of financial planning for those with less education and from disadvantaged backgrounds, in a bid to promote greater empathy from those better off.


Good work Channel 4.

SHutchinson

2,040 posts

183 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
More benefit porn? Excellent work, it really is rather good sport to laugh at the poor.

Come on CH4, have we not had enough of this.

Ari

19,328 posts

214 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
'...who are each given a lump sum of £26,000 - the maximum any one family can receive under the Government's benefits cap.'

Is it really the maximum though? My understanding is that there are a myriad of loopholes, exceptions, 'special cases' and work-arounds for more money if you know the system (and have enough kids of course).

Ari

19,328 posts

214 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
W00DY said:
This is going to be an objective look into the difficulties of financial planning for those with less education and from disadvantaged backgrounds, in a bid to promote greater empathy from those better off.


Good work Channel 4.
That sounds a bit dull, I'll watch the Channel 5 one in the story instead I think. smile

Otispunkmeyer

12,557 posts

154 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
Is it only me who reads that its actually a Channel 5 effort ?

Also I do not believe for a minute that cracking open some champers and throwing notes in the air is something anyone would do unless you'd won the euro millions. £5 bet that the producers wanted those particular shots.

W00DY

15,467 posts

225 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
Ari said:
W00DY said:
This is going to be an objective look into the difficulties of financial planning for those with less education and from disadvantaged backgrounds, in a bid to promote greater empathy from those better off.


Good work Channel 4.
That sounds a bit dull, I'll watch the Channel 5 one in the story instead I think. smile
Blame OP.


He's probably the type of scum who gets his hair cut on my taxes.

CountZero23

1,288 posts

177 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
£26,000 is enough to start a small business, get trained up in a trade, move to India and live like kings for a couple of years.

Or...














"Scott and Leanne with the beach bar they installed in their back garden."

WindyMills

290 posts

152 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
theboss said:
It would be interesting to see an equivalent production whereby the 'typical' PHer as depicted on the recent thread, was given his annual net salary in one lump sum.
Where do I sign up?

Surely most working people in this situation would save the majority of that money? Whether it's paying down debts, house deposit, new kitchen or topping up pension, whatever. Doubt it would be as controversial or make good viewing either.

hornetrider

63,161 posts

204 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
55palfers said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3429613/Ma...

I can't see this working too well!

If they did get a job within a month or so, what are the chances of getting the money back do you think?
Maybe someone can help me on this. But why is it that people who are on benefits just have 'the look' that they are indeed on benefits. You can just tell, right?







Strange.

55palfers

Original Poster:

5,893 posts

163 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
Otispunkmeyer said:
Is it only me who reads that its actually a Channel 5 effort ?

Also I do not believe for a minute that cracking open some champers and throwing notes in the air is something anyone would do unless you'd won the euro millions. £5 bet that the producers wanted those particular shots.
OP (Mr Thickfinger) here

Yes, my mistake.

Must have been in too much of a rush to get to the barbers.

theboss

6,878 posts

218 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
WindyMills said:
theboss said:
It would be interesting to see an equivalent production whereby the 'typical' PHer as depicted on the recent thread, was given his annual net salary in one lump sum.
Where do I sign up?

Surely most working people in this situation would save the majority of that money? Whether it's paying down debts, house deposit, new kitchen or topping up pension, whatever. Doubt it would be as controversial or make good viewing either.
Yeah you're probably right - rather than a wildly exuberant 'pulling of triggers' and stockpiling of red bull, most of us would probably just offset it against the mortgage.

battered

4,088 posts

146 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
Ari said:
'...who are each given a lump sum of £26,000 - the maximum any one family can receive under the Government's benefits cap.'

Is it really the maximum though? My understanding is that there are a myriad of loopholes, exceptions, 'special cases' and work-arounds for more money if you know the system (and have enough kids of course).
Yeah, right. Everyone on benefits gets loads of money, there are a myriad of loopholes, etc. I have first hand experience of living on benefits for a protracted length of time in 2010-11 following a road accident when I couldn't work. My total benefit received in the year between my last salary payment and 52 weeks later was about £3,600. Yes, three thousand six hundred pounds. Give or take. Total. My rent over this period, which came out of that sum, was £5,400. Leaving a deficit of £1800 to pay bills, buy food, etc. Yes, that's a negative sum. Good thing I had savings.

The "living on benefits is easy money" brigade ought to f**ing try it before they hold forth about how easy it is. Do some people abuse the system? Of course, just like some people fiddle taxes. But "easy money"? No. I saw enough Netto bloody chicken to last me a lifetime. The proportion of benefits claimants getting *anything like* £26k is vanishingly small. Families of 6 in West London, 1 of whom is severely disabled and needs 24 hour care, maybe. How many of them are there? Most benefits claimants get rent paid, CT paid, maybe heating/elec paid, £70pw. In a small place in say Leeds this is £5400 + £1000 + £600 + (£70 x 52). £11k, give or take. That's a lot less than £26k. Now go and live on it.

Oh, and this isn't a pop at you, Ari, it's a pop at the Daily Mail sponsored attitude that all on benefits are scroungers who've never done a day's work, it's easy money, blah blah blah, and a pop at exactly this kind of benefits porn.

hornetrider

63,161 posts

204 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
battered said:
Yeah, right. Everyone on benefits gets loads of money, there are a myriad of loopholes, etc. I have first hand experience of living on benefits for a protracted length of time in 2010-11 following a road accident when I couldn't work. My total benefit received in the year between my last salary payment and 52 weeks later was about £3,600. Yes, three thousand six hundred pounds. Give or take. Total. My rent over this period, which came out of that sum, was £5,400. Leaving a deficit of £1800 to pay bills, buy food, etc. Yes, that's a negative sum. Good thing I had savings.

The "living on benefits is easy money" brigade ought to f**ing try it before they hold forth about how easy it is. Do some people abuse the system? Of course, just like some people fiddle taxes. But "easy money"? No. I saw enough Netto bloody chicken to last me a lifetime. The proportion of benefits claimants getting *anything like* £26k is vanishingly small. Families of 6 in West London, 1 of whom is severely disabled and needs 24 hour care, maybe. How many of them are there? Most benefits claimants get rent paid, CT paid, maybe heating/elec paid, £70pw. In a small place in say Leeds this is £5400 + £1000 + £600 + (£70 x 52). £11k, give or take. That's a lot less than £26k. Now go and live on it.

Oh, and this isn't a pop at you, Ari, it's a pop at the Daily Mail sponsored attitude that all on benefits are scroungers who've never done a day's work, it's easy money, blah blah blah, and a pop at exactly this kind of benefits porn.
Your problem is that you weren't a career benefit claimant gaming the system. You were simply 'between jobs'.

dingg

3,974 posts

218 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
^^

Good post battered

ANYONE can end up on benefits - its the ones that make it a lifestyle choice that piss people off

jurbie

2,339 posts

200 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
I suspect your mistake was having savings then obviously you're going to get less money. My sister spent over a decade on benefits and only stopped when her kids finally grew up. She lived in a lovely council 3 bed semi, had regular camping holidays in Wales although she also managed to get to Ibiza a couple of times and never really seemed to want for anything. I used to give her video tapes so she could record stuff off Sky for me because even though I worked and lived in a crappy terrace and rarely had a holiday I still couldn't afford Sky.

Another friend used to go out drinking every Friday and Saturday and could even afford the occasional week long bender either here or in another city, didn't matter really as long as there was a sofa to sleep on and he could get back once a fortnight to sign on. At the time I was working and just about paying my bills and putting food on the table but that was it.

In the short term working is defintely a mugs game.

98elise

26,376 posts

160 months

Wednesday 3rd February 2016
quotequote all
hornetrider said:
battered said:
Yeah, right. Everyone on benefits gets loads of money, there are a myriad of loopholes, etc. I have first hand experience of living on benefits for a protracted length of time in 2010-11 following a road accident when I couldn't work. My total benefit received in the year between my last salary payment and 52 weeks later was about £3,600. Yes, three thousand six hundred pounds. Give or take. Total. My rent over this period, which came out of that sum, was £5,400. Leaving a deficit of £1800 to pay bills, buy food, etc. Yes, that's a negative sum. Good thing I had savings.

The "living on benefits is easy money" brigade ought to f**ing try it before they hold forth about how easy it is. Do some people abuse the system? Of course, just like some people fiddle taxes. But "easy money"? No. I saw enough Netto bloody chicken to last me a lifetime. The proportion of benefits claimants getting *anything like* £26k is vanishingly small. Families of 6 in West London, 1 of whom is severely disabled and needs 24 hour care, maybe. How many of them are there? Most benefits claimants get rent paid, CT paid, maybe heating/elec paid, £70pw. In a small place in say Leeds this is £5400 + £1000 + £600 + (£70 x 52). £11k, give or take. That's a lot less than £26k. Now go and live on it.

Oh, and this isn't a pop at you, Ari, it's a pop at the Daily Mail sponsored attitude that all on benefits are scroungers who've never done a day's work, it's easy money, blah blah blah, and a pop at exactly this kind of benefits porn.
Your problem is that you weren't a career benefit claimant gaming the system. You were simply 'between jobs'.
This

I know 3 people on long term benefits. All live within a stones throw from me, and all have a house a car etc and live pretty much normal lives.

One of them has not done a days work in the 25+ years I've known them, at no point has he ever considered working.