I don't know if this is simply ignorance on my part of whether there genuinely isn't the information out there but something has been bugging me for a while.
Some of the hot topics of the past few years and one of the sticks people use to beat the conservative government is their handling of benefits.
Both sides argue yet neither side seems to have anything to back up their point of view.
Are benefits enough to live on essentially?
We hear quite often about person x who has to go to a food bank to feed her three children, person y who can't afford to put the heating on etc.
We are told that food banks are opening up all over the place as a response to the growing problem of people not being able to afford to feed themselves. That appears to be evidence of a problem but things are not so simple. If the stigma of food banks is reduced and the number of people wanting to help increases due to the publicity around this issue then it is not necessarily evidence of direct cause and effect.
Apparently the number of people saying they cannot afford to feed themselves has dropped while the number of food banks has exploded.
Sometimes there is a story in the papers about someone on benefits who feeds themselves for a pittance and you have to wonder how much of peoples poverty is self inflicted.
Is there a study out there that has followed families spending and accounted for every penny and come to the conclusion that they are not wasting money and simply don't get enough. It doesn't seem like a good career move to claim that benefits are enough to live on so you have two options. You either claim they are not enough and that you are a sympathetic person who wants to raise the amount they are given or you skirt around the issue and never address it face on.
So, whats the word. Is there such a study and what are your views on this?
I don't want people to argue over whether they are necessary, if they are abused or whether people deserve more money or less. I am asking whether there is any directed study on the amount benefits pay and whether it is sufficient. Asking people is not evidence.
Some of the hot topics of the past few years and one of the sticks people use to beat the conservative government is their handling of benefits.
Both sides argue yet neither side seems to have anything to back up their point of view.
Are benefits enough to live on essentially?
We hear quite often about person x who has to go to a food bank to feed her three children, person y who can't afford to put the heating on etc.
We are told that food banks are opening up all over the place as a response to the growing problem of people not being able to afford to feed themselves. That appears to be evidence of a problem but things are not so simple. If the stigma of food banks is reduced and the number of people wanting to help increases due to the publicity around this issue then it is not necessarily evidence of direct cause and effect.
Apparently the number of people saying they cannot afford to feed themselves has dropped while the number of food banks has exploded.
Sometimes there is a story in the papers about someone on benefits who feeds themselves for a pittance and you have to wonder how much of peoples poverty is self inflicted.
Is there a study out there that has followed families spending and accounted for every penny and come to the conclusion that they are not wasting money and simply don't get enough. It doesn't seem like a good career move to claim that benefits are enough to live on so you have two options. You either claim they are not enough and that you are a sympathetic person who wants to raise the amount they are given or you skirt around the issue and never address it face on.
So, whats the word. Is there such a study and what are your views on this?
I don't want people to argue over whether they are necessary, if they are abused or whether people deserve more money or less. I am asking whether there is any directed study on the amount benefits pay and whether it is sufficient. Asking people is not evidence.
Last edited:
