I know I will look really bad with this question but can anyone explain how anybody gets in the situation where they need them? If person A B C D and E can live on benefits without needing a foodbank then how is it that person F needs them to survive of they all have the same basic circumstances? The only thing I can think of is personal choices, sky rather than food drinking instead of paying bills. Smoking rather than taking care of the kids. Now I know that it can't be as simple as that can it otherwise so many intelligent people wouldn't be falling for the myth of such poor poverty so what is it? I understand that people may suddenly find themselves temporarily short of money due to a sudden change in circumstances like a separation or sudden loss of job where their expenditure was linked to their income and the sudden dramatic drop in income has let them with expenses too high to cope with but what about those on long term benefits (I don't mean that to sound judgemental) who find themselves on them despite no real change on their circumstances? How does that happen because again the only thing I can think of is poor decisions. Anyone? I'm genuinely interested in knowing the proper reason for how people come to rely on them long term.
I was tempted not to ask because I knew how it would look but I hope anybody reading will understand that my intention is just to really understand how real poverty actually happens rather than being an attack.
you forgot to mention the 6 or more kids also the other vital essentials.... scratch cards, x-box, mobile phone, body piercings, narcotics, tattoos...etc etc
Re: you forgot to mention the 6 or more kids But wouldn't that appear on the surface to generally speaking come under the bad choices bracket?
Re: you forgot to mention the 6 or more kids Lady I know uses one regularly, she's self employed with 3 children and her husband left her. Her business hasn't took off aswell as what she had hoped and put alot of money into it, probably money she didn't have either.
well to you and me it comes under that heading, but to them it comes under heading "WTF the social will sort it" and the tax payer will foot it.
Re: well to you and me it comes under that heading, but to them Sorry, but that's quite shallow minded.
Re: you forgot to mention the 6 or more kids Any idea how long she has been self employed and how long ago her husband left?
It's the disabled people are being attacked. The ones who go for these 'assessments' at ATOS and get no points even though they are clearly unable to work. They are chucked on the dole queue and then arent even consideres for a proper job because of their disability. It's ok though just give them a zero hour contract thatll shut the plebs up. Sorry i just hate this awful government.
There are some people who abuse the system - ask MP's about their expenses - but these are the ones who will be highlighted by the press and MP's. Think it's sad we need these in 21 st century :-(
Re: you forgot to mention the 6 or more kids Historical bad choices, though - ones that you can't fix easily, or at all, with the income that comes on benefits. Even a £100 loan to buy a second-hand washing machine can escalate rapidly if you can't easily afford the repayments, but it's money that needs to be found somehow if you're going to live a normal life. A couple more off the top of my head: Location and tenure. For one thing private renting can be more expensive than housing association property, and people might end up living somewhere they can't afford. It's not as easy as just moving - the total cost for me to move into my rented flat was about £700 (before having to buy furniture). My rent's very reasonable, but if I got into a situation where I lost my job and was unable to pay it, I'd find it difficult to pay the costs (deposit, furniture moving, agency fees) required to move somewhere cheaper, such as into a shared house. It's also very difficult to find flats or houses nowadays that will accept people on housing benefit, and even then what if you fail the standard credit check? If, on the other hand, you've got a mortgage then contributions-based JSA won't cover it, so for the first six months you're going to have to pay that out of your savings, or try and claw together enough JSA. You deal with this partly in your post, but don't forget that short-term loss of income can change into long-term unemployment fairly easily - it's not as clear cut as there being two separate groups of people. Cost of food and other bits and pieces - I live in a major city and take my ten minute walk to any one of Aldi, Lidl, Sainsbury's or the Co-op (plus Poundland, Wilkos etc) for granted, but many of the slum clearance estates weren't provided with these basic amenities, for example. If you've got to do all your shopping in Spar you're going to get a lot less for your money than if you have a local greengrocer, big Tesco or Lidl. In fact, one of the things that people often mention is how expensive things become when you're poor. You lose the convenience of being able to pay for things in bulk or spread out over the year, you're often forced to use more expensive shops, energy through pre-paid meters is considerably more expensive that paying by direct debit. Your washing machine £100 is at a crippling rate of interest instead of being a loan from a friend or a negotiated overdraft. People make bad choices, but if you're in a stable job then they're fairly minor (I, for instance, am still paying off an ill-advisedly taken loan from four years ago - I've learned my lesson and have nearly paid it off) - the problem with living on a very low amount of money is that these poor choices become compounded quickly, and it's very easy to find yourself in a situation when you can no longer cope. People should certainly take responsibility for their own actions, but it strikes me as unfair for somebody to be punished for that £100 washing machine loan for years and years. Even my loan, which I've repaid without any trouble whatsoever for all of those years, would be a hundred-odd quid a month that I'd be expected to find out of any benefits I might receive in the future. That's easily considerably more than the difference between being able to exist on benefits and not being able to feed myself.
People on long term benefits play the system, couple of kids, maybe a sickness or two, if I was to lose my job And couldn't get another within two mortgage payments I'd be eating at mi mam and dads every meal, because I've not forged a life of scrounging, the foundation that I've built my life upon have been that of working for a living, with my outgoings and spendgidture I'd be able to survive on a dead end minimum wage job, but I can understand how others wouldn't be able to take such work due to the bills they have, based on a wage much bigger then minimum wage or benefits, if all you've done all your life is survive on benefits and hand outs, you'll not have the car or a couple on finance or a big mortgage and bank loan, you'll have rent and a bus pass
Think the press have done a great job making 'scroungers' the bain of the nation - wasn't these people who brought the country to its knees. There are those that play the system but are probably a very small percentage - make a program about it - a few stories in the media and it's a problem that is made to look bigger than it is
I agree to a extent but the amount of young mothers living on their own and not working for a living will be pretty high in this country pal, with or without the press stirring things up that's a plain one to see, I know a lot will work part time but they'll still be topped up with benefits.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/why-are-so-many-people-using-food-banks http://www.trusselltrust.org/real-stories http://www.trusselltrust.org/resources/documents/press/foodbank-report.pdf In the unlikely event that you are genuinely interested.