How do the "Have Nots" get on in life?

think-left.org/2017/10/15/we-cant-afford-not-to-invest-in-a-better-society/

This is a very interesting read.

Yes, it's impossible not to conclude that the MP's who represent Tory seats have scant personal and little professional knowledge of how tough life is for the Have Nots. I agree it's cruel and not only do they not truly understand it begins to feel that they don't care either.

Iam, although I would not want to go to the extremes of the current government I have to agree that the were foreseeable 'unforeseen consequences' if you know what I mean with the tax credits. I just think what they are trying to do at the moment with Universal Credit is cruel because they really don't understand what it is like to be in the position that some people are in.

That's right trisher, the children of the late 40's and 50's were given totally free medical care which was expected to be from cradle to grave. There were uniform allowances and very poor children were helped with books and most books were provided free by the school, on the basis you handed it back in at the end of your year. All the other things you mention in your post were 'benefits' most of us benefitted from. There was a lot of support and wages were just that, wages. I know that Gordon Brown did many good things but I was concerned about tax credits when they were introduced. I recognise the positive view that no one should be worse off financially when working than when on the dole. It's true that many people worked 16 hours then topped up with tax credits. I also recognise that this allowed many single parents to work with all the mental health and social benefits that go with that, at the same time as surviving with their mental health intact.
It's a conundrum but I find it hard to believe the large multi nationals can't afford to lower their profits and pay the living wage plus, as well as provide more job security for their employees. A phone call to say we need you now just raises the stress levels in someone who has to arrange care for their children or dependent loved ones.
I agree with Norah that (most) people have a harder time now for a variety of reasons, many related to housing cost.

I think people have a harder time now for a variety of reasons, most related to housing cost.

I wonder about this idea that there were no benefits in the 50s. I grew up in a council house- affordable rent for working people, when I passed the scholarship and went to grammar school we got a uniform allowance because dad was low paid. I seem to think there were also awards for very poor children to help with books etc, although we didn't have to buy many they were supplied by the school. When I went to college I got a full grant, when I lived in a hall of residence this covered all the costs and I had a small amount for clothes/books/ entertainment.Add to that no charges for prescription medication, school clinics which treated minor injuries providing dressings for free. Free orange juice and vitamins, not to mention free milk and we have a very different picture and a much more caring community than we have now. Perhaps that's the real answer to how the "Have nots" get on in life with a lot of support!

Not just that, MesMopTop, employers who pay less than a living wage are encouraged because of in-work benefits.
Those are benefits that change according to how many hours you work, such as working tax credits, and ESA, etc, nothing to do with child benefit, or pensions.

That's appalling, whitewave.
I suppose you know about streetlink, where you can tell Shelter about rough sleepers in your area?

I can’t imagine what the numbers of homeless are now. I was out for a meal a couple of nights ago in a very affluent county town. Almost every single shop doorway had folk bedding down.

Durhamjen, in most cases it doesn't, or a person is better off by only s couple of pounds. My personal yhoughts are that by claiming people are in work, it allows the unemployed figures to be massaged. It would be interesting to have a breakdown of how many hours people are working. People can be worse boffin work and there are many diverse reasons that hey accept these short hours and low pay. The system needs a complete overhaul. In this day and age nobody should be homeless or hungry or made to feel like a second class citizen. It's just plain wrong.

But I was specifically talking about in-work benefits.

No Durham although I suppose some are. I was just drawing attention to the fact that 'benefits' whether in work or not, are not necessarily what a lot of us perceive as 'benefits'. Simply put, it you removed child benefit from the statistics it would hugely reduce the number of people claiming in work benefits.

Are you saying that most pensioners are in paid work, Nonnie?
Not in my experience.

What is a benefit? Child benefit, pension? In that case a huge proportion of working people are on benefits.

Those in work but receiving some benefits do not have the same amount as those who don't work surely ?

Just to put the record straight GGMK2 and Granny23, I am not an undercover reporter for the Daily M.......!!!
This thread has certainly opened up many opinions, and I hope has been stimulating and thought provoking.
Threads should make us think and question.
I hope I have.

Agree, MopTop. There are more people on benefits in work than out of work, so how does that make work pay?

55% of those in work are in poverty.
How does that make work pay?

GGMK2 now that you have put that thought into my head it will not go away

Is grannysue05 an undercover writer for the Daily Mail - setting up a thread so they can steal the posts to make an article again?

The OP sounds very much their style.

There are always going to be some that will abuse any system, no matter what. However, for most, it is what keeps body and soul together. When I look at the closures of so many industries, such as the ship, car and what have you, well, there goes the full time jobs and the apprenticeships. It must be very hard for youngsters to get taken on because of the loss of our industries, due to closures or outsourcing. I would not have too much faith in unemployment figures either. How many jobs now offer just a few hours a week? People take those jobs, now come off the unemployed list but are still reliant upon benefits. Many of those in such conditions are really struggling. Public sector housing is a nightmare. Times have changed and it's not unreasonable for people to expect to have some of the mod cons. I would much prefer to have a washing machine rather than have to wash by hand. That's progress. If governments used taxes and revenues wisely, there would be no such thing as poor and starving people. Have a good look at exactly where the money goes! Maybe a new government run by gransnetters might be a start ?

Did you see, paddyann, that Branson is putting £65 million into the hyperloop, which will get people from London to Edinburgh in 55 minutes.
My first thought was to wonder how much of that came from the NHS.

Errr well....yes...paddyann...but that is kind of a different topic altogether. Don't get me started on tax evaders lol (being currently infuriated and confused with why people who set up limited companies can suddenly appear to have NO income having had so much money previously, only to avoid child maintenance because they are now a "limited company") But as I said...different issue, different topic

theres plenty who exploit the system at the other end of the scale too...how many millionaires dont pay tax ?People like Bernie Ecclestone who owe the country hundreds of millions of pounds an do deals to pay 10% of his bill..with NO fear of being chased or imprisoned by the HMRC ,unlike people who "work" the benefits system and who DO get prison sentences.Shouldn't it be the same rules for ALL of us ? After all weren't we all supposed to be in this together according to Cameron?

No way would I want to go back to life in the 50s or 60's but I think what the OP is getting at is that people's expectations these days are far higher, whether they are working or not or whether they can actually pay for it or not.

People expect to have t.v's computers cars and holidays plus be able to eat out. Back in the day, beginning with my parents era; people cut their cloth accordingly! We weren't a disposable society. Goods had to last! Clothes were mended etc. Most people didn't go out for meals on a regular basis. Nowadays it is amazing how many good t.v's, fridges, suites etc are at the local tip. Charity shops are thriving with peoples discarded items etc. This is not just the "rich" people in Society either.

I do get angry at times as the work ethos for a lot of people is - do as few hours as we can, to get benefits! (this I have witnessed first hand) I have suggested they may like to work more hours (which is an option) to get same pay but the attitude more often than not is one of complete disbelief like "why should I WORK more hours to get the same amount of money?" I don't agree with that. I think if people are capable of working more hours and don't have restrictions i.e. childcare problems then they SHOULD work more hours even just for their own pride but that doesn't seem to come into the equation.

I am happy that we have the benefits system we have for those in genuine need. I suppose no matter what system there will always be an element who exploit it and know how to work it to their advantage one way or the other.

I have dealt with unemployed clients in the days when rent was paid to them, and some people got into arrears. Then rent was paid direct to the landlord/council. This lasted for many years. When advising clients about returning to work, and the financial implication, the idea of managing their wages to pay rent was a big issue. While unemployed, the roof over their head was guaranteed. They did not have to think about it. If they worked they would be responsible for budgeting. This was a real barrier to some clients and I think many chose not to bother. This system was disabling some people.