Proposal: Pay SW monthly, not weekly.

an innocent abroad

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
27,532
Why not Bi-weekly? A lot of people put money off their utilities which leaves them cash poor to pay for food and other needs or extras.

Bi-weekly would enable them to achieve both.
 


stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,782
I think weekly is better as it means I will be able to use the dole for the day to day expenses and save my salary from my off-the-books construction job for the big ticket items.
 

Gin Soaked

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
4,369
That's all very well in the case of people on good incomes, but if you're an OAP with nothing but the State pension, it's more about survival than financial planning.
True. We often run short each month if there are random extra bills (we had two kitchen appliances die one month apart), but we have good jobs and are laid back about it. There is "fat" we can cut back on.

Many people have no such fat in their household finances. A clutch or injector for the car can mean rent arrears.

Monthly paychecks were a shock to the system when they first happened. For years, our paydays were 2 weeks apart, but now they are at the same time but all our bills leave my account 2 weeks later. You have to be careful .

Now, if you are (And by no means am I dumping all unemployed people in this bucket) bad with money and a bit dim and lacking in self control , monthly dole would be a disaster and a boon for loansharks...
 

Gin Soaked

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
4,369
I think weekly is better as it means I will be able to use the dole for the day to day expenses and save my salary from my off-the-books construction job for the big ticket items.
Actually I know one person who could live on her widows pension and her salary was saved for utility bills and other hefty items. Some people can really live on air..
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
30,652
Should social welfare be paid once per month, rather than once per week?
Given it's well documented failure in the UK, probably not.

This would ease pressure on families struggling with rent, electricity bills, costs of school books etc. It would not increase the costs for taxpayers, but would reduce the risk of low income households going into debt.
How? Again: Given that you've seen the well documented failure of this in the UK.

It might actually save the taxpayer money as fewer families face eviction from non-payment of rent due to lack of cash-in-hand, meaning they don't go on the housing list.
How?

It would also save taxpayers money staffing social welfare offices.
True.

Guys: If you're smart enough to budget your costs on a monthly basis and arrange your finances in such a manner, it's unlikely you're going to be on social welfare in the first place.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,782
Guys: If you're smart enough to budget your costs on a monthly basis and arrange your finances in such a manner, it's unlikely you're going to be on social welfare in the first place.
I am not sure that this is a fair conclusion to reach about people on social welfare.
 

Alan Alda

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
5,397
Prejudiced and ignorant much , Sync?
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
58,015
Given it's well documented failure in the UK, probably not.



How? Again: Given that you've seen the well documented failure of this in the UK.



How?



True.

Guys: If you're smart enough to budget your costs on a monthly basis and arrange your finances in such a manner, it's unlikely you're going to be on social welfare in the first place.
My understanding of the problem in the UK is that people were waiting six weeks - not one month - and that they were waiting that long for their first payment.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
30,652
One of the fundamental problems is that they can't manage money. If you give them a lump sum, they spend the lump sum. Then you're left with people unable settle their bills at the end of the month, which led to landlords not being willing to rent to them.
 

Alan Alda

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
5,397
One of the fundamental problems is that they can't manage money. If you give them a lump sum, they spend the lump sum. Then you're left with people unable settle their bills at the end of the month, which led to landlords not being willing to rent to them.
Who the hell is they ? You're talking about whole swathes of society !
 

gijoe

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
15,348
Easier to budget
I'm afraid a certain cohort of recipients will piss it against a wall/inject in a vein in a few days leaving them to prey on State and Charitable services for the bulk of the month. We all know it will happen.
 

an innocent abroad

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
27,532
Given it's well documented failure in the UK, probably not.



How? Again: Given that you've seen the well documented failure of this in the UK.



How?



True.

Guys: If you're smart enough to budget your costs on a monthly basis and arrange your finances in such a manner, it's unlikely you're going to be on social welfare in the first place.
Since welfare is reconised as being below the poverty levels, there is not much to play around with, particularly if they are paying off weekly bills, rent, food extras, prescription charges, Vat rates on all bills( which are the same regardless of incomes) a bi- monthly payment would give them much more enough to make decisions, while if any unexpected expense comes up, extra prescription charges, public transport costs to hospitals, extras, etc, at least it would be only 2 weeks rather than a monthly payment. .
 

Alan Alda

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
5,397
I'm afraid a certain cohort of recipients will piss it against a wall/inject in a vein in a few days leaving them to prey on State and Charitable services for the bulk of the month. We all know it will happen.
Maybe. Some might splash out on a course or a printer or some business cards.
Different strokes for different folks.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
58,015
One of the fundamental problems is that they can't manage money. If you give them a lump sum, they spend the lump sum. Then you're left with people unable settle their bills at the end of the month, which led to landlords not being willing to rent to them.
I think you mean the banks.
 

gijoe

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
15,348
I think weekly is better as it means I will be able to use the dole for the day to day expenses and save my salary from my off-the-books construction job for the big ticket items.
Walking around money so to speak........FF are very familiar with that concept.......
 

offalypat

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
2,836
I get paid by the month and although it works for me a single colleague finds that by week three she is struggling and by week four is living off her credit card. I imagine it would be even worse for someone on social welfare unless there is another income coming in every week or someone is very good at budgeting.
would they start off by paying a month in advance.
 

randomwalk

Active member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
229
I'm afraid a certain cohort of recipients will piss it against a wall/inject in a vein in a few days leaving them to prey on State and Charitable services for the bulk of the month. We all know it will happen.
I always remember in college when studying the Permanent Income Hypothesis my lecturer cited a paper cited a paper which found a relationship between mortality rates and the receipt of income, with the rise of mortality rates after being paid (from as varied of causes as crashing a new car to drugs and drink) being used as an argument against the PIH.
A bit random, but I could see it being used to argue against this through the above.
 

Gin Soaked

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
4,369
I am not sure that this is a fair conclusion to reach about people on social welfare.
No, its not. But there would be a big cohort of unemployable people who could not manage a budget. So having two systems would be an admin nightmare.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top