'I only survive through Cash Converters': Carer mum who can't afford a bed reveals desperate poverty

First topic message reminder :

The documentary goes behind the scenes of the staff and customers, some who are struggling to rub two pennies together

It's a heartbreaking moment for a Cash Converters customer who admits that she and her son are sleeping on an airbed because he can no longer make it upstairs.

Elaine is a full-time carer for 27-year-old Mark, who suffers from the rare degenerative condition Lowe's Syndrome, and she regularly visits the Cash Converter store in Glasgow to try and provide much needed funds to survive.

In the BBC show which goes behind the scenes of the staff and customers of the Renfield Street second-hand trading store in Glasgow, Elaine is a regular customer.

The staff of the store say of one of their favourite customers: "She's a fantastic woman, I've known her for so long."

A £65-a-week carer allowance is not enough for Elaine and her family to survive on, so she scrapes together anything she can including anything she can sell at Cash Converters.


Mark has a life expectancy of just 30 years old

Her son Mark's condition carries a life expectancy of just 30 years and Elaine says that the recent government cuts have greatly affected her job as her son's full-time carer.

She explains: "We're struggling and I would say we're not getting the help that we need. The help we need is just not there.

"We can't walk away because we're the carers and we have no choice."

In the rest of the show the staff are faced with a shoplifter who swipes a flat-screen television before a quick thinking member of staff runs after the thief to retrieve the expensive item.

The staff also have to stall a phone thief who tries to cash in on a stolen mobile so the police can question the customer.

It's also terrible news for one family who suffer a tragic loss and have to pawn their possessions to afford to pay for a funeral for their stillborn son.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/i-only-survive-through-cash-6117957

korban dallas wrote:income support is a  means tested benefit and is  the amount the government estimates you need to live on

Carers Allowance is deducted from income support or any other benefit because its classed as and income so there is no net gain

Not so.

I was claiming Carers allowance of £62.10 per week topped up with Income support of £45 per week

If you are under State Retirement Age and do not do any other paid work, you can claim Income Support and Carer’s Allowance instead of applying for Jobseeker’s Allowance. This means you will not have to sign-on, or look for any other work.

http://equallives.org.uk/info-and-advice/advice-for-carers/

korban dallas wrote:if an elderly person or disabled person was put in to local council care its would cost on average £399 a week

of cause we could just  euthanize the elderly and disabled that would save money .....hold on a sec didn`t we win the war against Hitler ?

£399 per week?

Ours is £609 that is paid.

Tommy Monk wrote:It's funny to see the lefties constantly changing and twisting their arguments here.


Yes, JSA isn't a huge sum, and yes it isn't supposed to be either!


It is designed to provide a basic level of survival to those who don't work but can work and should work, for a relatively short period of time until they do get into work.


And if the claimant is really actually looking for work and prepared to take any type of work then they will get work.


The sad reality is that many of these people don't want to work and until recently have been able to pretend to look for work to the job centre and became long term unemployed.


Often doing little bits of cash work on the side to boost income as well as getting rent paid etc.


I am in favour of a system that provides for those short term unemployed while they get back into work... but the rest who have been playing the system must have stiffer rules applied to them for their behaviour to be forced into change.


This is a totally different subject to provisions for the genuine people who can't work because of illness of disability.


And the over generous hand outs to others who have children is a different subject again.


Those who genuinely can't work should be looked after better and those unemployed with kids should not be getting more than many working People.


Victor claims wages are too low but the reality is that costs of living are too high, having increased hugely and disproportionately And wages also suppressed because of mass immigration by labour!!!

This is what I don't get about the lefties. They seem to think that those on JSA or other benefits should have the same standard of living as those who actually get off their arses and work for a living.

If someone lost their job through no fault of their own, and got enough money from the state to have the same standard of living they had before, why would they bother to get another job? The idea is to give people enough for essentials on a temporary basis until they can support themselves again.

Those who get other benefits just seem to whine all the time about how badly off they are. There's never one word of gratitude from them for the support and money they do get. Do they ever give a thought to the people who actually work and pay taxes so that they can be looked after?

Tommy Monk wrote:It's funny to see the lefties constantly changing and twisting their arguments here.


Yes, JSA isn't a huge sum, and yes it isn't supposed to be either!


It is designed to provide a basic level of survival to those who don't work but can work and should work, for a relatively short period of time until they do get into work.


And if the claimant is really actually looking for work and prepared to take any type of work then they will get work.


The sad reality is that many of these people don't want to work and until recently have been able to pretend to look for work to the job centre and became long term unemployed.


Often doing little bits of cash work on the side to boost income as well as getting rent paid etc.


I am in favour of a system that provides for those short term unemployed while they get back into work... but the rest who have been playing the system must have stiffer rules applied to them for their behaviour to be forced into change.


This is a totally different subject to provisions for the genuine people who can't work because of illness of disability.


And the over generous hand outs to others who have children is a different subject again.


Those who genuinely can't work should be looked after better and those unemployed with kids should not be getting more than many working People.


Victor claims wages are too low but the reality is that costs of living are too high, having increased hugely and disproportionately And wages also suppressed because of mass immigration by labour!!!

Its themimmigrantswotdoneitguv


oh dear Tommy you really are dense

cost of living too high/wages too low IS THE SAME THING. they are mutually dependant

either that OR you agree the the problem is not a few unemployed, but the greedy fat cats that are ripping the system off....

( Ithought R/W claimed the ability of economics?)

Christie wrote:

korban dallas wrote:income support is a  means tested benefit and is  the amount the government estimates you need to live on

Carers Allowance is deducted from income support or any other benefit because its classed as and income so there is no net gain

Not so.

I was claiming Carers allowance of £62.10 per week topped up with Income support of £45 per week

If you are under State Retirement Age and do not do any other paid work, you can claim Income Support and Carer’s Allowance instead of applying for Jobseeker’s Allowance. This means you will not have to sign-on, or look for any other work.

http://equallives.org.uk/info-and-advice/advice-for-carers/

yes so Christie

it was topped up with £45 if you had not been getting CA your iS would have been more

Effect on other benefits

If you get Universal Credit, it might affect how much you get from other benefits.

Any means-tested benefits you get will be reduced by the same amount you get from Carer’s Allowance. This includes:

   Housing Benefit
   Income Support
   income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
   Pension Credit
   Universal Credit

An extra amount (called the ‘carer premium’) will be included in the calculation of your means-tested benefits.

You might also be eligible for a Council Tax Reduction.


https://www.gov.uk/income-support/what-youll-get

Well they would still get over £300 a week on top of the rent, yes?

korban dallas wrote:

Christie wrote:

Not so.

I was claiming Carers allowance of £62.10 per week topped up with Income support of £45 per week

If you are under State Retirement Age and do not do any other paid work, you can claim Income Support and Carer’s Allowance instead of applying for Jobseeker’s Allowance. This means you will not have to sign-on, or look for any other work.

http://equallives.org.uk/info-and-advice/advice-for-carers/

yes so Christie

it was topped up with £45 if you had not been getting CA your iS would have been more

Income support is normally £73 per week if you are not a carer.

Premiums
You could also get an Income Support ‘premium’ - extra money based on your circumstances, eg if your partner is a pensioner, or you’re disabled or a carer.


That above is what I was getting - income support premium of £45 per week on top of £62.10 carers allowance

korban dallas wrote:Effect on other benefits

If you get Universal Credit, it might affect how much you get from other benefits.

Any means-tested benefits you get will be reduced by the same amount you get from Carer’s Allowance. This includes:

   Housing Benefit
   Income Support
   income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
   Pension Credit
   Universal Credit

An extra amount (called the ‘carer premium’) will be included in the calculation of your means-tested benefits

You might also be eligible for a Council Tax Reduction.


https://www.gov.uk/income-support/what-youll-get

I received full housing benefit whilst a carer - nothing was reduced.

Raggamuffin wrote:Well they would still get over £300 a week on top of the rent, yes?

Yes

Raggamuffin wrote:Well they would still get over £300 a week on top of the rent, yes?

depends and this is to help with extra costs of the disabled /elderly person not the person claiming IS
Also they don`t get all there housing costs paid that`s a fallacy they still have to make a contribution

Christie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Well they would still get over £300 a week on top of the rent, yes?

Yes

That seems plenty to me.

Christie wrote:

korban dallas wrote:Effect on other benefits

If you get Universal Credit, it might affect how much you get from other benefits.

Any means-tested benefits you get will be reduced by the same amount you get from Carer’s Allowance. This includes:

   Housing Benefit
   Income Support
   income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
   Pension Credit
   Universal Credit

An extra amount (called the ‘carer premium’) will be included in the calculation of your means-tested benefits

You might also be eligible for a Council Tax Reduction.


https://www.gov.uk/income-support/what-youll-get

I received full housing benefit whilst a carer - nothing was reduced.

it depends on many factor`s your age there age there savings your savings your rent

PLENTY???

thats 1200 a month

jesus I was making that a week...15 years ago....

Raggamuffin wrote:

Christie wrote:

Yes

That seems plenty to me.

try being disabled and say that this jealousy of the disabled is quite sicking actually

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That seems plenty to me.

try being disabled and say that this jealousy of the disabled is quite sicking actually

What jealousy? I said it seems plenty to me.

victorismyhero wrote:PLENTY???

thats 1200 a month

jesus I was making that a week...15 years ago....

That's presumably why you think everyone needs thousands of pounds a month for essentials.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
try being disabled and say that this jealousy of the disabled is quite sicking actually

What jealousy? I said it seems plenty to me.

i say what i see attacks against the fat the poor now the disabled pretty sick actually but very RW

Thank you Christie for your earlier post showing the other benefits coming into the household.



I knew it would be multiple other benefits coming in and much more than the article was suggesting...


And victor... mass immigration has hugely and disproportionately increased the cost of living.


Mass immigration has also suppressed wage rises because of over supply of cheap labour.


This is a double whammy!!!


Same cause... two negative effects!!!



There are many more negative effects too... all stemming from this same cause.


I won't bother going into it any further because it is pointless when all you lot do is attack me for 'racism'!

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:PLENTY???

thats 1200 a month

jesus I was making that a week...15 years ago....

That's presumably why you think everyone needs thousands of pounds a month for essentials.

wrong, however it IS why I dont begrudge the poor a bit of my taxes....

oh and


oh and

since when have I been a "leftie" pfft

and self serving...example please...

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What jealousy? I said it seems plenty to me.

i say what i see attacks against the fat the poor now  the disabled pretty sick actually but very RW

The point is that they're not poor - it's hardly "desperate poverty" is it? Re fat people, I haven't attacked them - I said they should try to lose weight rather than rely on benefits. That seems reasonable to me.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
i say what i see attacks against the fat the poor now  the disabled pretty sick actually but very RW

The point is that they're not poor - it's hardly "desperate poverty" is it? Re fat people, I haven't attacked them - I said they should try to lose weight rather than rely on benefits. That seems reasonable to me.

the thing is i did not say desperate poverty but yes that are some in that situation and some quite a bit better of but when you factor in the special equipment that is often needed for elderly and especially the disabled just to lead a some what normal life "plenty" is a relative term

oh and

since when have I been a "leftie" pfft

and self serving...example please...

Since you cant provide anything to back this up I can only assume its the usual lying drivel from a cornered R/W er....

My advise raggs is read this

Meeting the costs of disability

http://www.psi.org.uk/publications/archivepdfs/Disability%20and%20social/BERTHOUD.pdf

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The point is that they're not poor - it's hardly "desperate poverty" is it? Re fat people, I haven't attacked them - I said they should try to lose weight rather than rely on benefits. That seems reasonable to me.

the thing is i did not say desperate poverty but yes that are some in that situation and some quite a bit better of but when you factor in the special equipment that is often needed for elderly and especially the disabled just to lead a some what normal  life "plenty" is a relative term

That would depend on the nature of the disability wouldn't it?

and this

http://www.scope.org.uk/Scope/media/Documents/Publication%20Directory/Extra-Costs-Report.pdf?ext=.pdf

and this

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/oct/11/disabled-cost-living-benefits-poverty-debt

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
the thing is i did not say desperate poverty but yes that are some in that situation and some quite a bit better of but when you factor in the special equipment that is often needed for elderly and especially the disabled just to lead a some what normal  life "plenty" is a relative term

That would depend on the nature of the disability wouldn't it?

yes As i said above

edit
able bodied people have no idea unless they have to care for such people

And this
Disabled people’s costs of living
More than you would think

Joseph Rowntree Foundation

http://www.jrf.org.uk/system/files/1859352375.pdf

Someone suggested to me last year that I should apply for disability benefits, but I said that would be silly because I hadn't tried the available treatment at the time.

Raggamuffin wrote:Someone suggested to me last year that I should apply for disability benefits, but I said that would be silly because I hadn't tried the available treatment at the time.

as i don`t know what "disability " you may or may not have i  can`t make a comment but disability rights is something i have been involved in for a very long time for obvious reasons
if you want some advice i am happy to give it but you would need to elucidate but as you seem to be reluctant to discuss personal issues that could be difficult


edit and you don`t live in the uk do you ?

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Someone suggested to me last year that I should apply for disability benefits, but I said that would be silly because I hadn't tried the available treatment at the time.

as i don`t know what "disability " you may or may not have i  can`t make a comment but disability rights is something i have been involved in for a very long time for obvious reasons
if you want some advice i am happy to give it but you would need to elucidate but as you seem to be reluctant to discuss personal issues that could be difficult


edit and you don`t live in the uk do you ?

Well I am a bit reluctant I guess. Basically, this is why I'm in favour of people trying treatment for their medical conditions though. Of course it depends on what they have, and what causes it, but I see no sense in having a condition which can lead to disability without treatment if you can control it or improve it by having treatment.

You see, I do apply my own opinions to myself too.

I do live in the UK btw.

Raggamuffin wrote:I do live in the UK btw.

Oh ok thought you lived in the republic of ireland

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I do live in the UK btw.

Oh ok thought you lived in the republic of ireland

No - must be someone else you're thinking of.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
as i don`t know what "disability " you may or may not have i  can`t make a comment but disability rights is something i have been involved in for a very long time for obvious reasons
if you want some advice i am happy to give it but you would need to elucidate but as you seem to be reluctant to discuss personal issues that could be difficult


edit and you don`t live in the uk do you ?

Well I am a bit reluctant I guess. Basically, this is why I'm in favour of people trying treatment for their medical conditions though. Of course it depends on what they have, and what causes it, but I see no sense in having a condition which can lead to disability without treatment if you can control it or improve it by having treatment.

You see, I do apply my own opinions to myself too.

some time the treatment can incur extra costs and that`s why these benefits are there to help with those costs if the treatments help than that`s a great thing and you would no longer need the benefit of the added support

a friend of mine has COPD she gets a mobility allowance but she still seeks out treatment nobody wan`ts to be disabled unless they are mad

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Oh ok thought you lived in the republic of ireland

No - must be someone else you're thinking of.

could be

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well I am a bit reluctant I guess. Basically, this is why I'm in favour of people trying treatment for their medical conditions though. Of course it depends on what they have, and what causes it, but I see no sense in having a condition which can lead to disability without treatment if you can control it or improve it by having treatment.

You see, I do apply my own opinions to myself too.

some time the treatment can incur extra  costs and that`s why these benefits are there to help with those costs if the treatments help than that`s a great thing and you would no longer need the benefit of the added support  

a friend of mine has COPD she gets a mobility allowance but she still seeks out treatment nobody wan`ts to be disabled unless they are mad

Well that's why I was a bit puzzled by the hostile reaction to my comments about the issue of treatment in another thread. It does seem to me that some people sabotage their own wellbeing by refusing medication, not being compliant, or doing things which will make the treatment less effective.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
some time the treatment can incur extra  costs and that`s why these benefits are there to help with those costs if the treatments help than that`s a great thing and you would no longer need the benefit of the added support  

a friend of mine has COPD she gets a mobility allowance but she still seeks out treatment nobody wan`ts to be disabled unless they are mad

Well that's why I was a bit puzzled by the hostile reaction to my comments about the issue of treatment in another thread. It does seem to me that some people sabotage their own wellbeing by refusing medication, not being compliant, or doing things which will make the treatment less effective.

which of course is a good excuse to cut/remove their benefits...thereby making their situation even worse.
so tell me this...

if someone is ill but working, and refuses to take some medication to improve their condition....should we jail them...fine them or what....

if your answer is NO then you are only interested because it involves benefits

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well that's why I was a bit puzzled by the hostile reaction to my comments about the issue of treatment in another thread. It does seem to me that some people sabotage their own wellbeing by refusing medication, not being compliant, or doing things which will make the treatment less effective.

which of course is a good excuse to cut/remove their benefits...thereby making their situation even worse.
so tell me this...

if someone is ill but working, and refuses to take some medication to improve their condition....should we jail them...fine them or what....

if your answer is NO then you are only interested because it involves benefits

My question would be - why are they refusing to try treatment which might improve their condition? If they were genuinely suffering, they would try it IMO. The point about benefits is that they could be avoided if someone was able to improve their condition via treatment, so why would they refuse?

I'm quite surprised by how little interest some people take in their own medical conditions. They don't know how the medication works, they don't know what treatment options there are, and they don't seem to want to know. They're not interested in lifestyle changes which might help either.

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

which of course is a good excuse to cut/remove their benefits...thereby making their situation even worse.
so tell me this...

if someone is ill but working, and refuses to take some medication to improve their condition....should we jail them...fine them or what....

if your answer is NO then you are only interested because it involves benefits

My question would be - why are they refusing to try treatment which might improve their condition? If they were genuinely suffering, they would try it IMO. The point about benefits is that they could be avoided if someone was able to improve their condition via treatment, so why would they refuse?

politicians answer

never mind the prevaricating, you are in favour of cutting benefits to make people comply with what then amounts to forced medication
so what about those who do similar but are not on benefits...

yes or no?

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

My question would be - why are they refusing to try treatment which might improve their condition? If they were genuinely suffering, they would try it IMO. The point about benefits is that they could be avoided if someone was able to improve their condition via treatment, so why would they refuse?

politicians answer

never mind the prevaricating, you are in favour of cutting benefits to make people comply with what then amounts to forced medication
so what about those who do similar but are not on benefits...

yes or no?

I certainly think they should be investigated if they refuse treatment which could improve their condition.

I see that a couple of other people took that view on the thread about obesity/drugs abuse/alcoholism. I just extend it to other treatable conditions.

If they're not on benefits, it's up to them really.

Raggamuffin wrote:If they're not on benefits, it's up to them really.

so if you on benefits you forgo your right to choose ?

My point exactly....its got NOTHING to do with any "concern" for the people its all to do with "benefits" and the strange fiction that cutting these people off benefits will some how improve the lot of the whinger....

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If they're not on benefits, it's up to them really.

so if you on benefits you forgo your right to choose ?

Well I would ask why they're refusing really.

Did you see Les say this in the other thread?

The condition is accepting treatment, if someone doesn't want to accept help why should they be allowed to accept handouts?

victorismyhero wrote:My point exactly....its got NOTHING to do with any "concern" for the people its all to do with "benefits" and the strange fiction that cutting these people off benefits will some how improve the lot of the whinger....

If people don't want to improve their condition, why would I be concerned about them?

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:My point exactly....its got NOTHING to do with any "concern" for the people its all to do with "benefits" and the strange fiction that cutting these people off benefits will some how improve the lot of the whinger....

If people don't want to improve their condition, why would I be concerned about them?

so you finally admit "its all about the benefit payments to them" now we are getting somewhere...

This was also interesting.

Didge:

Sorry Korben I am all for this and the same should be applied to smokers and drinkers.You want benefits, then you look to see help to quit smoking and if you have a drink problem.

Korben's reply:

No that`s ok if it is self inflicted trough greed

So what's being said there? That if a condition is "self-inflicted", it's fine to withdraw benefits?

Could it not be said that if someone refuses treatment which could improve their condition, it's self-inflicted in a way?

well I'd disagree with that too...

unless of course we leave the runner who collapses to die

the driver at fault in an accident to die

the drunk to choke to death on the street

the suicide attempt to die....

etc etc


benefits never have been NOR EVER WERE INTENDED to be conditional upon accepting forced medication
health provision never has been nor ever was intended to be conditioned in the same way

"free at the point of need"