New cap on benefits

[Dark Knight]

there has been a lot of chatter on the radio today about the new benefit caps coming into play
a maximum of £500 per week for a family and £350 per week for a couple or a single person
this now ensures the benefits payable are below the current average wage of around£26,000
the reason behind the cap is to make work more attractive and that large families are not paid tens of thousands above the average working wage

Discuss

[towny44]

Seems like a good idea, but will it work? Or more to the point will those currently enjoying an idle time on benefits decide to work instead, Mmmmm I wonder.

[Not so ancient mariner]

I can forsee problems with the high rental costs in many areas, especially London

[oldbluefox]

There is something wrong when somebody works for a living and cannot afford to live in London whereas somebody on long term benefits who has never done a day's work in his life (and has no intention of working) can afford to.
Meanwhile landlords can charge what they like knowing the state will pay.
Maybe if the powers that be started to spread the country's initiatives a little more equitably throughout the land instead of focusing on London and the South East it would create work in areas these people could afford, pressure on housing in London would be eased and rents would start to fall.

[Kendhni]

It's little more than a headline grabber. It will only affect a very small number of claimants.
£500 per week in benefits is the equivalent of a salary of approximately £32K (before tax and NI) which isn't bad for an average family.

My hope is that the relatively small amount of money saved will go to help those with a genuine need.


.

[Kendhni]

It's a bit like the sensationalist garbage in the news yesterday that talked about unaffordable housing .. talk of spinning a headline out of nothing.

Apparently next weeks headline is going to be 'Ferrari's are off-limits to lower-income working families because they are unaffordable"

[The Monocled Mutineer]

in tune with the concept of the Benefits Cap. Work must always pay above being idle and supported by other tax-paying workers.

Regarding the high cost of housing in London, SE England and other pockets (more often enough where the work is) the great mistake was the populist Thatcher policy of selling off council houses to the tenants, and often at knock-down prices.

Former council houses in the village I live in now would require a deposit of over £30k and a mortgage of 15x the average salary of £26k. Even in the nearby town a deposit for a similar property would need at least £25k and a mortgage of 8x the average salary

Derek Kane

The Monocled Mutineer

||||
o Q
<
\__/
|>o<|

[Boris+]

I expect that the 'lay about' element will moan and carry on about these cuts, but why can't the lay abouts and scroungers make some cuts of their own?

For instance, I still see people who could easily be described as lay abouts and scroungers (nothing to do with war widows, disabled people etc) getting a taxi to and from a supermarket when they live nearer than I do - they are younger, fitter and could easily walk the short distance. Then I see them buying bottled water - we have bottles which we fill from our tap, keep them in the fridge and take them with us wherever we go; or they buy expensive cups of coffee (what's wrong with either waiting until you get home for a coffee or taking a flask?). If they want all these little luxuries, then let them blasted well work for it.

Apologies if this has upset anyone, it is purely and simply my personal opinion.

Em

[Dark Knight]

whilst not as dismissive as Ken,

Surely any scheme that reduces the taxpayer's burden and also gets people positively contributing to the economy is a good thing? I have always thought that benfits are a saftey net not a lifestyle choice and anything done to break that cycle is positive, there was a bit more on the radio today about reducing benefits even further in the future

As far as the housing reports go, I agree that more needs to be done to spread the wealth and that governments and others should realise there is a very fine country outside of the middle England enclaves that make up the home counties and investment in other areas will decrease the housing problem

[The Tinker]

I applaud any reduction in benefits and agree with DK they should only be there for people who, through no fault of their own, need assistance.

I have people who work for me who can only work '16' or '25' hours because it is not worth doing anymore as they will lose their housing benefit and other perks.
There is absolutely no reason why these people cannot work full time and when they used to add the benefits to people's wageslips it used to drive me mad when I worked full time that they took home more than me for half the hours worked

[ChesterfieldJohn]

I can forsee problems with the high rental costs in many areas, especially London

Its about time the southerners were affected as well as everywhere else

John

[Silver_Shiney]

I expect that the 'lay about' element will moan and carry on about these cuts, but why can't the lay abouts and scroungers make some cuts of their own?

For instance, I still see people who could easily be described as lay abouts and scroungers (nothing to do with war widows, disabled people etc) getting a taxi to and from a supermarket when they live nearer than I do - they are younger, fitter and could easily walk the short distance. Then I see them buying bottled water - we have bottles which we fill from our tap, keep them in the fridge and take them with us wherever we go; or they buy expensive cups of coffee (what's wrong with either waiting until you get home for a coffee or taking a flask?). If they want all these little luxuries, then let them blasted well work for it.

Apologies if this has upset anyone, it is purely and simply my personal opinion.

Em

No, Em, it is NOT your personal opinion - it is the consensus opinion. Every right-minded person in the country feels the same way.

It riles me when I see these "poor destitute" people being interviewed on TV - fag in gob, can of lager in one hand, large-screen TV on the lounge wall behind them....

[Manoverboard]

It's a start and after all the moaning the recipients will no doubt gradually get used to the idea and the reason for it, after that the handle will be cranked one more notch year on year.

But .... WOW betide them if they dare to steal my Bus Pass, Xmas Bonus or Winter Fuel Allowance, oh yes.

[Quizzical Bob]

I expect that the 'lay about' element will moan and carry on about these cuts, but why can't the lay abouts and scroungers make some cuts of their own?

For instance, I still see people who could easily be described as lay abouts and scroungers (nothing to do with war widows, disabled people etc) getting a taxi to and from a supermarket when they live nearer than I do - they are younger, fitter and could easily walk the short distance. Then I see them buying bottled water - we have bottles which we fill from our tap, keep them in the fridge and take them with us wherever we go; or they buy expensive cups of coffee (what's wrong with either waiting until you get home for a coffee or taking a flask?). If they want all these little luxuries, then let them blasted well work for it.

Apologies if this has upset anyone, it is purely and simply my personal opinion.

Em

No, Em, it is NOT your personal opinion - it is the consensus opinion. Every right-minded person in the country feels the same way.

It riles me when I see these "poor destitute" people being interviewed on TV - fag in gob, can of lager in one hand, large-screen TV on the lounge wall behind them....

Absolutely. If they don't think that way then they're not right in the mind.

[The Tinker]

Ah that was you on the news MOB sat on the bus stop with your bag of coal and widescreen tv tucked under your arm.

[Manoverboard]

Ah that was you on the news MOB sat on the bus stop with your bag of coal and widescreen tv tucked under your arm.

That's just for starters ....

[Mo2013]

There are those who screw the system for all its worth and I appreciate the strong feelings about scroungers, but there is very little sympathy or compassion on here and not everyone who is out of work is a scrounger. I remember my son being made redundant and the hoops he had to go through to get help because he had a family to support were unbelievable. You have to go for job interviews whether the job is suitable or not just so you can tell them you have otherwise you risk losing your benefit. Sometimes you are expected to travel miles on public transport, sometimes two buses, just to earn only slightly more than you get on benefits. It's clearly not right. It's easy to condemn but even the people referred to in previous posts surely have a right to spend their money how they wish. It might not be palatable, but surely everyone is entitled to some pleasure, whether it be cigs, a drink and a tv or would you all have them on bread and water ?

Sorry Em, but one of my pleasures is a 'nice' coffee, just sitting and relaxing in a different environment; I don't have a machine at home that makes coffee like that, and I drink bottled water because my tap water has a taste I don't like. Like I say, would you have them on bread and [tap] water? Yes they would save money if they didn't buy these things, but if people haven't any pleasures in life then they are just existing, without choices. You are judging others and saying how you think they should spend their money. None of know what we would do if we found ourselves in that situation.

PS: There are just not that many families who receive thousands in benefit.

[oldbluefox]

Mo - ' None of know what we would do if we found ourselves in that situation'.

But some of us have been in that position and do know and we could not afford cigarettes, alcohol, tattoos etc. You are not poor if you can afford luxury items. Your money goes on keeping body and soul together and providing for your kids.

I think there are more scroungers and benefit cheats than many of us realise. Unfortunately they are taking money from those who have been put out of work and are in genuine need of a hand whilst they find a new job.

[Dark Knight]

listening to some more blurb on the radio today, it does sound like this just the start and more cuts are on the way
looks like a few landlords are going to have to cut the rents and a some families are in for a right shock

[Boris+]

Hi Mo,

You make some very good points, and yes perhaps I am judging, but only because I would dearly love to be able help more people to have a better life.

In the nicest way possible I don’t imagine in my wildest dreams that you are in any way similar to the folk I have mentioned. Maybe some of the problems are down to poor education (nobody’s fault, just the way it is) – but when I watch someone who is unemployed buying relatively costly convenience food, drinking costly coffee and expensive bottled water I then think that they have made a bad situation worse.

If people are not working, they have time (and space if they are in a house with a garden) to grow some vegetables and fruit. They also have the time to walk to the shops (more free exercise, which is good for them), they also have the time to cook (not heat, but properly cook) nourishing and interesting simple meals – which is much better for them.

So these folk are stuck in a trap, they are being so hugely manipulated by skilled advertisers and they are wasting the small amount of money they have, they are wasting the time they have and some opportunities too along the way.

Sorry – but I find it so frustrating. Maybe, just maybe this benefit cap will do somebody some good. I am not willing to fund the Wayne and Waynetta lifestyle any more.

Please don't feel offended with this response - it's just me being me; and it most certainly not a criticism of your valid views.

Em

[Mo2013]

Em, I feel that grabbing dramatic headlines gives people the wrong impression. These headlines sell papers and makes people terribly outraged. There just aren't that many people raking in thousands of pounds of benefit. I don't know how those who have received large amounts have done it, but they are an anomaly. If you haven't got a job and there are no jobs, what are people supposed to live on? So the government are trying to stop what has gone before, but we should not tar everyone with the same brush. Like I say, it is easy to pontificate and pass judgement, but some of you don't have any idea of how the other half live and that's why I'm leaving it there.

[GillD46]

As has already been said, not all those on benefits are scroungers. There are a great many with disabilities or severe mental health illnesses and for many of them, just getting through the day is as much as they can manage, they don't have the motivation to cook from scratch nor grow their own produce.

For those, and I include my own daughter, I don't begrudge them the odd coffee or convenience meal.

[Dark Knight]

benefits targeted at and received by the people most in need are not in question
large benefits paid to baby making machines and feckless lazy slackers are and hopefully this new scheme will cut this down ,as will the proposal to limit child benefit to 2 children and the proposed restriction on giving council houses to single under 25 year olds

I applaud any move to reduce the benefit culture BUT also maintain some benefits should be there for those in most need

Em
Really??? growing veg? are you serious or just making a joke?

[ChesterfieldJohn]

benefits targeted at and received by the people most in need are not in question
large benefits paid to baby making machines and feckless lazy slackers are and hopefully this new scheme will cut this down ,as will the proposal to limit child benefit to 2 children and the proposed restriction on giving council houses to single under 25 year olds

I applaud any move to reduce the benefit culture BUT also maintain some benefits should be there for those in most need

Em
Really??? growing veg? are you serious or just making a joke?

That is fine and I dont disagree, but what about the tax evaders and the employees who pay the minimum amount and then get rid of people when they need to either loose them or make them permanent?

Also where are the full time jobs?
From what is said most of the 'new' jobs are part time again helping the employee as they dont have to pay the full stamp, insurance or holiday pay at the full rate.


John

[Dark Knight]

john

this is about benefits not tax avoidance, which is a whole different discussion, tax avoidance is part of a corrupt taxation system that needs a overhaul as much as the benefits system