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

I agree FarNorth when I was receiving rent rebate (as it was in the 80's) I didn't get the money, it went straight to the landlord and I paid the difference. makes sense to me.

That is very sad to read, paddyann.

I'm not sure that you are agreeing with me, gillybob.

My point is that tenants who can budget sensibly are more in control of their rent payments if the money comes to them and not to the landlord.

There are no news articles about those tenants, of course.

I think the big change is that back in the 40s/50s/60/s we were all in the same boat within our communities, we cut our cloth to suit our means, helped each other out (eg my Dad did anything electrical for the neighbours, man next door, who was a 'shilling a week man' and therefore had a big car, was the local, free taxi service, The slightly better off retired couple at the end of the street had a phone which neighbours were welcome to use for vital calls, those who fished distributed their catch (no fridges or freezers) garden produce was shared too. We had over 300 wedding presents, nothing very expensive, everything from a washing basket with pegs and washing powder to a lifetime supply of sheets, pillowcases, towels and dish towels because the Co-op happened to have a 'white sale' just before our wedding. We did use HP but on a strictly 1 item at a time basis. It was better to save up for large purchases/holidays/Christmas because there was worthwhile interest on savings and high rates of interest on borrowing or HP.

But society has changed totally. We are no longer mainly in the same boat- the gap between the income of the poorest and the well off is ginormous and quite random. Even for retired folk - my widowed sister has a huge civil service pension + half her DH's pension + a full state pension with added credits from her DH's contributions. Because DH was self employed and I was denied a pension from the Bank I worked for because I was a married woman, and then worked in the voluntary sector, we have no 'works pensions' only miniscule private ones and neither of us has a full state pension. Young people today are encouraged to spend on their credit cards, hopefully clearing the balance each month, but if illness, accident, unplanned pregnancy or redundancy strikes, they do not start from a level playing field or with at least modest savings to tide them over. Instead they are plunged into debt immediately, with interest on interest adding to the sum owed each month and no choice but to keep using the credit card for essentials and to make payments on mortgage, mobile phone, internet, TV, boiler, car, etc. contracts.

Changed days indeed - truely a time when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The answer is simple. They don't. Or often don't. Because they have low expectations and expect to fail.

Blimey some posts (well, one in particular) here teaching Grannies to suck eggs or What?
I may disagree with GrannySue but I at least give her credit for knowing how many beans make 5
There are many of us with experience of disadvantaged people in the community, social workers , health visitors, teachers, police or probation officers and others, and for all I know grannySue is one of them.
Still beg to differ of course

OOOps I think i might have boobed again. Sorry FarNorth . The point I was making that when you are already on a very tight budget it's far too easy to dip into the rent to pay for this or that (in my case it might have been food or to feed the meter) but if its paid direct at least you will have the roof over your head. So maybe I am disagreeing with you, I'm no longer sure, but I think paying direct was the best way for me.

An excellent post Granny23 .

I really do think that giving people the chance to earn a moderately good wage is important. In some ways I think employment law acts as a disincentive if it becomes too restrictive. Also the benefit trap doesn't help.
But when people are struggling to make ends meet it is so difficult to get out of it.

That's fine gillybob .

I believe the current system is that the benefit is paid to the tenant unless the tenant requests it to go to the landlord, or unless they have not been paying regularly and the landlord requests payment to themselves.

I would hate to see control taken away from those tenants who are able to budget sensibly.

I always find it difficult when direct comparisons are made between us and millennials because it simply can't be done.

Apparently housing costs are more for them than us but then clothing and food are a lot cheaper now. Supermarkets sell school uniforms at below what we paid in specialist shops and that is not counting inflation. We were glad to accept second hand furniture because furniture was so expensive but now there is IKEA and other cheap stores.

Phone calls were necessarily brief (and on a party line) because they were so expensive and we tried to make them after 6pm. Now everyone has a cheap phone package and can chat away for long periods.

Around 5% went to university and got grants to do so. Now around 50% go so it is too expensive for the state to fund.

Nowadays there are 2 incomes in most families because children can go to nursery. There were no nurseries for me to send my children to, just one morning a week of play which we mums organised and paid for one qualified helper.

Whether or not you agree with Grammar schools they are still unfair because it depends where you live how easy it is to get into one. In some place 25% qualify, in others it is lower.

Our expectations were to be pretty much as our friends were and that hasn't changed.

I forgot to add that at one point DH did a pools round to supplement our income and on another occassion I did someones ironing and cooked for a small organisation. Don't think these things are available now.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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 ?

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

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