casiguapa wrote:YES. YES THEY DO. whether it's £5 or £16, Housing benefit does not cover 100% of your rent because things such as water rates and central heating and hot water which are always included in council rent prices are ineligible for Housing Benefit. How do I know this? When I was unemployed I had to pay it. My rent was £95.76 and my Housing Benefit was £79.40 leaving me to pay £16.36 a week from £50 because my rent includes central heating and hot water and water rates. A friend of mine only pays £5 because her rent DOESN'T include hot water and central heating. Some pay nothing at all because they're in temporary accommodation which means they can't settle down in any community for long before they're moved on.
So your severe doubt is pointless because it's the reality of a lot of claimants.
NO, NO they don't they have to pay their services, as deducted from their rent where services are included
; that is a world of difference (£79.40 a week different in your case) I don't actually think that this is massively fair; as a house with no water or energy to cook with, is actually still not very useful, but it's better than being expected to find the full rent from JSA.
where exactly are all these jobs these unemployed people are supposed to be getting coming from? Or are you saying that because they're unemployed they should work menial jobs that require more hours per week and less money per month whilst making them economically worse off?
I reffer you to one of my statments above:-
TheKrikkitWars wrote:As for the jobs if you want them argument, it's true to an extent ... [there are] plenty of people who can't afford to go into a job because of the added costs of things like childcare which they otherwise wouldn't require decreasing their net income to near nil, even if their gross income would be higher than benefits.
JSA claims for one person is not the same as that of a family. Your case has a dependent involved, there is no way your dad was supporting the family on a single persons JSA. If he was, then he was claiming incorrectly. Joint claims are worth twice the single rate i.e £100 instead of £50 a week. If he was a single parent then he would've been put on income support and not JSA depending on your age at the time of redundancy which would mean that he wouldn't have had to consistently prove he was seeking work as he would've been exempt from that. Lastly it's absolutely no good comparing the cost of living in the early 90s to the cost of living in 2010. It's also no good ignoring that these changes will hit those who live in cities the hardest and they tend to have higher living costs than those in rural areas as it is.
As I'm sure you're aware, JSA is means tested after the first 183 days (or from the start if you don't have 2 years of NI contributions/only made NI contributions as a self employed person), my mum had a part time job, which she had no desire to give up (both my parents are too proud for that) and as was revealed to me recently (I'm 20 btw, so the cost of living in the early 2000's is significantly more relevant to the cost of living now than the 1990's, and even so we can assume that JSA has been increased in line with the Retail Price Index at the very least) we were worse off like that than if my mum had been out of work too, (Dad recived ~£20 a week, Mum earned £65 a week plus my monthly family allowance money, which just about paid for me to go though clothes at an alarming rate as I grew from 5'9" to 6'2" in that time). The point that a small family can survive (just) on the money allowed it holds, presumably the same applies to a single person on single person's benefits etc...
In fact the fact that you yourself haven't starved to death, or ended up on the streets indicates that the benefits system provides enough money for people to sustain themselves albeit not comfortably.
So how exactly did all of this get mixed in with the argument over the fact that a significant minority of benefits claimants are making little or no effort to work, even though they could do so without penalty (and that ignores the other signigicant minortity who aren't seeking work because they'd be worse off due to an ill thought out gap in the social security system).