I think we need to be careful here not to make judgements either way about the circumstances, especially where the full facts of the case are not known.
I'd agree with that in principle. Given my close professional involvement with benefits and particularly Universal Credit though I can make an informed guess about the FACTS and what the deceased's circumstances would be.
As a single Jobseeker he would get either Job Seekers Allowance of £73.10/week or Universal Credit of £317.82/month. JSA is paid fortnightly so potentially he has £146.20 to play with on payday. If, as seems likely for a man of 28 who's drunk himself to death, he had a serious health condition the amounts might be higher. Equally they could be reduced because of deductions for bills, budgeting loans, fines etc.
If he spent £20 that should have gone on his electric key on two bottles of Vodka so be it. We cannot, and should not aspire to, controlling lives to extent that state might be expected or able no prevent such tragedies.
Rant over.
|
As a single Jobseeker he would get either Job Seekers Allowance of £73.10/week or Universal Credit of £317.82/month. JSA is paid fortnightly so potentially he has £146.20 to play with on payday. If, as seems likely for a man of 28 who's drunk himself to death, he had a serious health condition the amounts might be higher. Equally they could be reduced because of deductions for bills, budgeting loans, fines etc.
Rant over.
When someone gets £317 for a month - I can never understand why people seem to think that people on benefits live quite well?
|
When someone gets £317 for a month - I can never understand why people seem to think that people on benefits live quite well?
................ because they believe their Daily Mail / Express
|
|
|
|
I think we need to be careful here not to make judgements either way about the circumstances, especially where the full facts of the case are not known.
I'd agree with that in principle. Given my close professional involvement with benefits and particularly Universal Credit though I can make an informed guess about the FACTS and what the deceased's circumstances would be.
As a single Jobseeker he would get either Job Seekers Allowance of £73.10/week or Universal Credit of £317.82/month. JSA is paid fortnightly so potentially he has £146.20 to play with on payday. If, as seems likely for a man of 28 who's drunk himself to death, he had a serious health condition the amounts might be higher. Equally they could be reduced because of deductions for bills, budgeting loans, fines etc.
If he spent £20 that should have gone on his electric key on two bottles of Vodka so be it. We cannot, and should not aspire to, controlling lives to extent that state might be expected or able no prevent such tragedies.
Rant over.
He may have only been on benefits for a short period, or may not. It could've been a one-off based on losing their job (an ex-colleague of mine lost theirs due to alcoholism, another because they lost their driving licence because of drink-driving offences), or that they may have had other serious problems that weren't mentioned in the article.
I myself have (during the recession of a few years ago) been on JSA (only) and know first hand how little that covers, but that many poorer claimants (with little in the way of savings) are entitled to somewhat more/other benefits.
Without the full facts of the matter (and newspaper articles, especially local ones [that have little money to dig much deeper into the circumstances] rarely have all the facts), I don't see how we can make any meaningful commentary. We don't even have a link to the original article. What I think we shouldn't be doing is (without the facts of the specific case) saying its either all his fault or none (i.e. it's 'the government's fault').
Polarisation of debate for the sake of ideology (the modern 'blame culture') does no-one any good. I've been guilty of that myself from time to time (especially more recently), having been drawn into making more ascerbic replies when measured ones were ignored or pilloried for trying to get to the root of the problem. Issues won't be solved by constantly just stating an entrenched position or half-truths and opinion dressed up as facts. To be interesting, debate doesn't have to always be 'edgy'.
Fin.
|
Polarisation of debate for the sake of ideology (the modern 'blame culture') does no-one any good. I've been guilty of that myself from time to time (especially more recently), having been drawn into making more ascerbic replies when measured ones were ignored or pilloried for trying to get to the root of the problem. Issues won't be solved by constantly just stating an entrenched position or half-truths and opinion dressed up as facts. To be interesting, debate doesn't have to always be 'edgy'.
It hasn't seemingly done Boris Johnson any harm, God help us all.
|
|
What struck me about this case was that alcohol addiction led this chap to effectively kill himself, one assumes that friends and family were aware of his addiction, yet the support he needed was not available (or rejected).
There are calls for more support services for those with mental issues/depression/addiction which of course would have to be paid for from the same pot that funds benefits.
In the last few years there have been a number of incidents (some fatal) of disturbed individuals jumping (or threatening to) from the Scammonden bridge over the M62, in each case closing the motorway for hours at a cost of millions.
Highways agency and local authorities keep delaying work to prevent these, again, shortage of funds probably the reason.
Government should re-assess how to spend taxpayers' cash for the best effect, rather than some of the virtue-signalling schemes they promote to pacify protesters.
|
Government should re-assess how to spend taxpayers' cash for the best effect, rather than some of the virtue-signalling schemes they promote to pacify protesters.
Galileo, that would require "joined-up thinking", how novel!
|
|
|
|
I myself have (during the recession of a few years ago) been on JSA (only) and know first hand how little that covers, but that many poorer claimants (with little in the way of savings) are entitled to somewhat more/other benefits.
The basic amount for an adult over 25 and under pension age to live on is £73.10 a week or it's monthly equivalent in case of those on Universal Credit. That's the amount the rules say you need to keep body and soul together. Rent is on top but won't necessarily cover what you actually have to pay because of bedroom tax for social housing and Local Housing Allowance ceilings for private renters.
Historically there were additions/premiums on top possibly including something for long term claimants. Those have been whittled away. The only adult additions now are for people with (serious) illness/disability or caring responsibility.
As you say we've no knowledge of circumstances surrounding the death of the young man referred to in the OP. It might have been a one off binge or the culmination of an ongoing addiction. He might have had support from family and the system or not. He might have had it and rejected it.
My point was simply to take exception to suggestion that if somebody out of work came into possession of a fatal dose of alcohol then claims about inadequacy of benefits were without foundation.
|
|
A bit of Googling turned up this:
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/man-found-dead-after-drinking-16455547
The facts are alike and given Galileo refers to Scammonden as being in his locality the area of the country matches.
It's a tragedy for Nathan Goodwill and his family but a pretty common state of affairs with men and women habituated with that level of drinking. Self medicating for depression?
Almost certainly some policy lessons to take from it but 'benefits are to generous' is not one of them.
|
A bit of Googling turned up this:
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/man-found-dead-after-drinking-16455547
The facts are alike and given Galileo refers to Scammonden as being in his locality the area of the country matches.
It's a tragedy for Nathan Goodwill and his family but a pretty common state of affairs with men and women habituated with that level of drinking. Self medicating for depression?
Almost certainly some policy lessons to take from it but 'benefits are to generous' is not one of them.
I did not say I thought benefits were too generous. It is a fact that many receiving benefits do not always prioritise spending in the way expected and assumed in calculating the proper level.
(As an aside, Bromp, I presume that you have read George Orwell's "Down and Out in London and Paris"? ).
|
|
|
(Duplicate post)
Edited by Avant on 21/06/2019 at 09:51
|
|
I did not say I personally thought benefits were too generous. It is a fact that many receiving benefits do not always prioritise spending in the way expected and assumed in calculating the proper level.
The words used were yet there are constant moans from some quarters that benefits are too low. As a person who holds the view, based on many years of professional experience, that benefits are not sufficient to live on I don't think my conclusion was unreasonable.
People in all walks of life fail to prioritise spending in the way it might be expected; it's not unique to people on benefits. I stand by my original comment about spending money that should have gone on the electric key.
(As an aside, Bromp, I presume that you have read George Orwell's "Down and Out in London and Paris"? ).
No. I thought I had a copy as part of an Orwell omnibus that was a speech day prize from school but it turns out not to be included. At a loose end this weekend house sitting for my daughter so might see if I can sort out a Kindle version.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 21/06/2019 at 10:00
|
|
The book. is available for £2.78 - here's a link:
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?an=george%20orwell&tn=down%20and%20out%20&pn=&kn=&
sn=&isbn=&gpnm=&sortby=2&an=&n=200000169&cty=&bi=Any+Binding&fe
=&sgnd=&dj=&prl=&prh=&ds=25&afsrc=1&clickid=37lSbyRkpxyJTGtwU
x0Mo3E2UklRTF2Fnxr8RY0&cm_mmc=aff-_-ir-_-66647-_-77798&ref=imprad66647&afn_sr=impact
My mother (born 1913) told me, when she was a child in Leeds, barefoot children were not uncommon: if she took an apple to school other kids would beg for the core when she'd eaten the rest. This was real child poverty, you will agree, far worse than not having the latest phone or trainers.
Edited by Avant on 24/06/2019 at 14:50
|
|
|
|
|
I myself have (during the recession of a few years ago) been on JSA (only) and know first hand how little that covers, but that many poorer claimants (with little in the way of savings) are entitled to somewhat more/other benefits.
The basic amount for an adult over 25 and under pension age to live on is £73.10 a week or it's monthly equivalent in case of those on Universal Credit. That's the amount the rules say you need to keep body and soul together. Rent is on top but won't necessarily cover what you actually have to pay because of bedroom tax for social housing and Local Housing Allowance ceilings for private renters.
Historically there were additions/premiums on top possibly including something for long term claimants. Those have been whittled away. The only adult additions now are for people with (serious) illness/disability or caring responsibility.
What about housing benefit and other ones, even if they are now part of UC? I thought that was the whole point of UC, assessing someone's means (including savings) and outgoings to get an amount that pays for essentials and can change, depending on changes in circumstance.
Anyway, I think this thread has essentially been discussing the wrong issue -despite high taxes on booze, its still very easy to do serious harm to ourselves without spending a small fortune. Someone that determined would've found themselves a way to get their fix whether they had the funds or not.
Perhaps some of these benefits could be given in the form of e-vouchers which could be spent using a card (pin required) on certain goods and services only, a bit like luncheon vouchers. The trouble is I doubt it would do much for the dignity of those using them, and ai suspect some determined individuals could 'sell' or 'loan' them in return for real money to buy booze, drugs, etc.
Again, there's a lot more to the why's and wherefores to such stories than on the surface and is unlikely to be solved here. What's sad is that little meaningful discussion of such issues other than in very small ideological bubbles is going on at the moment in political circles. Most people seem to want to employ the 'I see no ships' approach, preferring to ignore the problem until it hits someone they care about or is too late to do anything meaningful.
|
|
The danger here is of linking one unfortunate incident with another issue. If the poor chap was an alcoholic then I suppose his ultimate demise was inevitable without treatment or counselling. The fact he was on benefits is neither here nor there. Like other forms of addiction, addicts are very clever at hiding the problem and also very cunning about finding funding for their addiction. I see no obvious link between the two issues here. The tragic circumstances of this mans death are all too common. Either a group of family and friends who are out of their depth or frustrated by repeated attempts to help, or no support at all and the ultimate downward spiral. Very sad in either case.
On another note I have witnessed men drinking pints of beer well into double figures with what appears to be no more than a hangover the next day. I must admit that on occasion, in my youth after an away rugby match, I too have drunk beer unto excess. Maybe being physically fit and well nourished the alcohol has a less debilitating effect upon the body.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
|
What about housing benefit and other ones, even if they are now part of UC? I thought that was the whole point of UC, assessing someone's means (including savings) and outgoings to get an amount that pays for essentials and can change, depending on changes in circumstance.
Housing costs are additional to the £73.10 to live on. They may or may not be paid directly to the landlord. For single people, excepting additions for serious ill-health or caring responsibilities, that's it . There are no 'other ones' and for that cohort UC makes no difference other than that it's paid monthly.
Most UC claimants, certainly once it's fully rolled out, will be working. For that group payments are adjusted for work earnings based on real time data from Employer's PAYE returns.
Anyway, I think this thread has essentially been discussing the wrong issue -despite high taxes on booze, its still very easy to do serious harm to ourselves without spending a small fortune. Someone that determined would've found themselves a way to get their fix whether they had the funds or not.
Absolutely. This is death from alcoholism. If there are policy implications they relate to health and social care, not benefits.
Perhaps some of these benefits could be given in the form of e-vouchers which could be spent using a card (pin required) on certain goods and services only, a bit like luncheon vouchers. The trouble is I doubt it would do much for the dignity of those using them, and ai suspect some determined individuals could 'sell' or 'loan' them in return for real money to buy booze, drugs, etc.
Agree with this too. The card involved identifies the holder to every check out attendant as being on benefits. Do we stop the claimant who has budgeted celebrating with a single bottle of beer? Do we stop the claimants following the guidance of Mx Jack Monroe and doing proper cooking on a shoestring from braising their cheap cuts of meat in cooking wine? If money can only be spent with the card (ie it's completely cashless) they cannot even pay in coin for a tin of basics baked beans. There will be a processing cost for that transaction - borne by the local shop unless the state subsidises.
All of which is why, for all it's appeal to the tabloids and some on the back benches, such a policy is wholly unworkable.
Again, there's a lot more to the why's and wherefores to such stories than on the surface and is unlikely to be solved here. What's sad is that little meaningful discussion of such issues other than in very small ideological bubbles is going on at the moment in political circles.
There's a whole shipload of policy getting no attention because of the political and administrative bandwidth consumed by Brexit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
