CH4 to pay claimants £26K benefits in one annual lump sum.
Discussion
markcoznottz said:
Any idea how?
marry within a small gene pool, better chance of having disabled kids ? http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/644930/Benefits-j...Sump said:
I love this. Throw a bunch of poor people a load of money just for our amusement 
Caught a bit of the first episode on catch-up tonight after reading this thread and can't say I'm a fan.For one thing, the chap with the long, greasy hair doesn't seem the full shilling, nor his wife. Perhaps they are just camera shy but I hope they are not selected for this show just because it might make good TV.
Seems like its geared to set people up for a fall - lets give someone used to living on a couple of hundred quid a fortnight, (outside of rent, bills etc) a load of cash and see if there's a car crash...
TV for the lowest common denominator imho, aimed at making other people on benefits feel superior to those on the show and to give folks not on benefits a cheap laugh.
I'm not so sure. As they stated, this is a social experiment that has been repeated in other countries / cultures already. If they really did want them to fail it would make no sense their having advisors on hand. It certainly seems more empathetic to me than the likes of Benefits Street anyway.
There has been people on benefits for years and years which are going to get a big shock when universal credit is rolled out. Currently they get their housing benefit and council tax etc all paid directly to the relevant parties. Whatever other benefits they claim are paid directly to the person. They then spend this on utility bills, fags booze food etc.
Universal credit means they will received all the money they claim then they will have to pay their rent and council tax themselves. This will appear to them as a massive pay rise where in reality there won't be any difference.
I'm thinking there will be a fair few landlords and councils that don't get their money.
Universal credit means they will received all the money they claim then they will have to pay their rent and council tax themselves. This will appear to them as a massive pay rise where in reality there won't be any difference.
I'm thinking there will be a fair few landlords and councils that don't get their money.
Bungleaio said:
There has been people on benefits for years and years which are going to get a big shock when universal credit is rolled out. Currently they get their housing benefit and council tax etc all paid directly to the relevant parties. Whatever other benefits they claim are paid directly to the person. They then spend this on utility bills, fags booze food etc.
Universal credit means they will received all the money they claim then they will have to pay their rent and council tax themselves. This will appear to them as a massive pay rise where in reality there won't be any difference.
I'm thinking there will be a fair few landlords and councils that don't get their money.
Absolutely. Mind you, there are already substantial rent arrears owed to both private landlords and local authorities down to claimants spending their Housing Benefit on other things. One of these recent benefits related programs (''How to get a council house'' I think?) showed a single mother, with her daughter, who was being evicted due to running up substantial arrears. She said she'd spent this money taking care of her daughter, although the multiple pairs of garish trainers, baseball caps, stupid finger nails and latest iPhone told a different story. Anyway, she gets evicted and is then given new accommodation due to the 'duty of care' afforded by virtue of her child. Funded of course, by the local authority she has just taken for thousands in housing benefits.Universal credit means they will received all the money they claim then they will have to pay their rent and council tax themselves. This will appear to them as a massive pay rise where in reality there won't be any difference.
I'm thinking there will be a fair few landlords and councils that don't get their money.
The choice though, is a tough one. Do we allow this kind of situation to persist or do we take the route of removing the child and in doing so, the duty of care owed to the mother? Does the child, who's innocent in all this, deserve to be taken into care because of the mothers actions? The reality is this is just never going to happen. No government is ever going to legislate for the removal of children down to running up rent arrears are they? On one hand we want people to be responsible and self reliant but the truth is that there are sections of society who simply don't have either the willingness, the skills or a combination of the two. Personally I think things are likely to get a whole lot worse.
Universal credit will be the downfall of many, if not the majority of those claiming maximum benefits.
The problem with the benefits "rut" as this show is trying to prove isnt the lack of money, it never has been the lack of money, its the lack of effort/bone idle-ness/not wanting to better themselves. Its not a financial constraint.
What also annoyed me was the woman who was looking for a job, she kept wittering on about their being no jobs. Ive never had a problem finding one, my friends have never had a problem finding one, except one mate who sits on his arse rotting in a cig/beer/dole hole, he is the only one who says "theres no jobs".
ETA: Gained this insight while growing up on a council estate, having to live with these types of people. A few are hard working and just in a bad position, but IMO the majority are on benefits for a self inflicted reason.
The problem with the benefits "rut" as this show is trying to prove isnt the lack of money, it never has been the lack of money, its the lack of effort/bone idle-ness/not wanting to better themselves. Its not a financial constraint.
What also annoyed me was the woman who was looking for a job, she kept wittering on about their being no jobs. Ive never had a problem finding one, my friends have never had a problem finding one, except one mate who sits on his arse rotting in a cig/beer/dole hole, he is the only one who says "theres no jobs".
ETA: Gained this insight while growing up on a council estate, having to live with these types of people. A few are hard working and just in a bad position, but IMO the majority are on benefits for a self inflicted reason.
Edited by TheLuke on Saturday 20th February 13:08
Edited by TheLuke on Saturday 20th February 13:16
Laurel Green said:
I shouldn't laugh but, and I know it's good that she is looking for work, when asked if she'd done cleaning before said "not for a long time" or words to that effect; sorry but seeing the state of their place...
Her wallpapering skills were not the best, but at least she's got off her backside and is doing something. I reckon she's the most changed of all the participants. Let's hope they realise that it's more beneficial for the decor if they smoke outside the house.Kids' party man printed 50 flyers. 50.
nicanary said:
Her wallpapering skills were not the best, but at least she's got off her backside and is doing something. I reckon she's the most changed of all the participants. Let's hope they realise that it's more beneficial for the decor if they smoke outside the house.
Kids' party man printed 50 flyers. 50.
He's got a sKids' party man printed 50 flyers. 50.
t HP ink printer, those flyers cost him a tenner each.TheLuke said:
Universal credit will be the downfall of many, if not the majority of those claiming maximum benefits.
I used to let some of my properties to a council & they paid the rent direct to me. Worked very well but since UC was introduced we've stopped doing it as there is no way I'm relying on some of these people to pay their rent. The council dropped a bk once & paid the tenant direct for the first payment (about £900 as it was the first payment and it's about 8-10 weeks delay from when the tenant moved in). The tenant went on holiday with the money.Whoever thought UC was a good idea is deluded. They could do with spending some time in the real world and understanding how some of these people live. Giving a crack addict hundreds of pounds a month and expecting them to pay bills etc. is like giving a 5-year old the keys to Toys R Us and telling him not to touch anything.
In scotland, Housing benefit being paid to the claimant has been happening for some time and as expected its been a colossal failure, Alot have managed but this mainly is people who work reduced hours, Short term benefit claimants etc, The full time benefit lot have just failed completely.
Tenants can voluntary have housing benefit paid to the landlord, Some tenants prefer this as it removes some temptation and means any funds in their account are theirs etc. Again this is done by people who are trying.
Landlords can request Housing benefit paid directly to themselves but without the tenants permission they have to have arrears over £1000+ Cant remember the exact cut off but its pretty high.
Ctax reduction varies from place to place, Currently in scotland its automatically applied to ctax account but in difference to england, Water and waste water is included in the council tax which even on full benefits still need to be paid. Depends on banding this will be around £200 annual over 10 installments of £20. To give you an idea how full time benefits claimants think. They can pay their very small council tax charge of £20 a month or as they have figured out, the maximum any organisation can deduct from benefits is £3.70 a week or £14.80 a month. So you will never believe what they do, They dont pay council tax, Wait for the summary warrant to be signed and then pay £14.80 a month instead of £20. Yes they will be paying this over even longer but as long as they stay on benefits which is their plan they will save £5.20 a month.
Meanwhile if your stupid enough to work, If you dont pay your council tax you will have sheriff officers round your house (Which doesnt happen to benefit claimants)
Tenants can voluntary have housing benefit paid to the landlord, Some tenants prefer this as it removes some temptation and means any funds in their account are theirs etc. Again this is done by people who are trying.
Landlords can request Housing benefit paid directly to themselves but without the tenants permission they have to have arrears over £1000+ Cant remember the exact cut off but its pretty high.
Ctax reduction varies from place to place, Currently in scotland its automatically applied to ctax account but in difference to england, Water and waste water is included in the council tax which even on full benefits still need to be paid. Depends on banding this will be around £200 annual over 10 installments of £20. To give you an idea how full time benefits claimants think. They can pay their very small council tax charge of £20 a month or as they have figured out, the maximum any organisation can deduct from benefits is £3.70 a week or £14.80 a month. So you will never believe what they do, They dont pay council tax, Wait for the summary warrant to be signed and then pay £14.80 a month instead of £20. Yes they will be paying this over even longer but as long as they stay on benefits which is their plan they will save £5.20 a month.
Meanwhile if your stupid enough to work, If you dont pay your council tax you will have sheriff officers round your house (Which doesnt happen to benefit claimants)
northwest monkey said:
TheLuke said:
Universal credit will be the downfall of many, if not the majority of those claiming maximum benefits.
I used to let some of my properties to a council & they paid the rent direct to me. Worked very well but since UC was introduced we've stopped doing it as there is no way I'm relying on some of these people to pay their rent. The council dropped a bk once & paid the tenant direct for the first payment (about £900 as it was the first payment and it's about 8-10 weeks delay from when the tenant moved in). The tenant went on holiday with the money.Whoever thought UC was a good idea is deluded. They could do with spending some time in the real world and understanding how some of these people live. Giving a crack addict hundreds of pounds a month and expecting them to pay bills etc. is like giving a 5-year old the keys to Toys R Us and telling him not to touch anything.
The only way IMO to help people like that is to fund education in lower class areas where benefits are common and encourage more people to work or study from a young age. Oh and less of an "incentive" to pop a child out and go on benefits, as at my age (21) every 2nd person without a career/job has popped one out
Was great to see Eddie Large and his Mrs putting real effort into changing themselves and their lives for the better. I imagine their self worth was through the floor, living as they were. The decorating was awful and fantastic at the same time!
Single mum appears to be doing OK but I still don't get why she needed £26k to start looking for work?
Party boy has made £70?! A fiver less than Eddie Yates!
Single mum appears to be doing OK but I still don't get why she needed £26k to start looking for work?
Party boy has made £70?! A fiver less than Eddie Yates!
e21Mark said:
Was great to see Eddie Large and his Mrs putting real effort into changing themselves and their lives for the better. I imagine their self worth was through the floor, living as they were. The decorating was awful and fantastic at the same time!
Single mum appears to be doing OK but I still don't get why she needed £26k to start looking for work?
Party boy has made £70?! A fiver less than Eddie Yates!
I was a bit confused (easily done these days....) by single mum buying the white goods for cash. In a previous episode she paid off all her finance, which is why she's spent a lot of her £26k, yet the voiceover claimed she'd bought these new appliances because she no longer wanted to owe anybody. Surely if she'd paid off the previous HP, the appliances were hers outright?Single mum appears to be doing OK but I still don't get why she needed £26k to start looking for work?
Party boy has made £70?! A fiver less than Eddie Yates!
nicanary said:
I was a bit confused (easily done these days....) by single mum buying the white goods for cash. In a previous episode she paid off all her finance, which is why she's spent a lot of her £26k, yet the voiceover claimed she'd bought these new appliances because she no longer wanted to owe anybody. Surely if she'd paid off the previous HP, the appliances were hers outright?
Think they said that she was renting the white goods - have no idea if this is possible though?Laurel Green said:
Think they said that she was renting the white goods - have no idea if this is possible though?
It is. Maybe I misheard "hire" as "hire purchase".I hope that Tony (Eddie Large) takes a punt and goes a bit more upmarket. AFAIK most boot sales are at weekends, so taking £75 gross profit once a week isn't going to pay the rent and feed the family. The problem for him and the Scouser is that they seem so happy taking a few quid in income, without realising that this is nothing like the sum they need just to pay their rent,council tax, utilities, food etc..
They've been given the equivalent of £500 per week income, and that's what they've got to aim for as a weekly business return. Prostitution beckons.......
Justayellowbadge said:
nicanary said:
They've been given the equivalent of £500 per week income, and that's what they've got to aim for as a weekly business return. Prostitution beckons.......
The Ted Bovis gigolo market is pretty niche. First rule of boot sales, Spike. Profit.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff