On 19/11/2017 15:54, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:38:19 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/11/2017 14:10, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 20:29:34 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25 is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

Quite. Thus if you agree 119 isn't generous for a single OAP to live on,
just how is half that generous for a younger person?

I gave the answer to that a few hours ago.

Pension is a lifelong thing.

UB is a stop-gap until things get better by other means (a job).

How is this a stop-gap, since it's not enough to live on?

That's what a stop-gap is: enough to tide you over for essentials only
for a limited period, not intended to be a long-term solution (that's a
job, that is).

So what do they go without during this period?

Things which aren't essential?

Just a suggestion.

I'm sure you do not insist that the taxpayer should pay for Sky
subscriptions, for a start.

Or car HP payments.

What if they get evicted from their home and become homeless because
they can't afford their rent, for example? It would become even more
difficult for them to get a job, without somewhere to live.

So some people say.

It's true.

Are many convinced by such obvious appeals to mawkishness?

It's nothing to do with mawkishness, call it realism.

You can't do that if it's not realistic.

Especially as benefits include an amount for rent (where the claimant
has rent to pay).

And you didn't even know that.