Poll: Benefit cap vote.

[RDM]

Not really - I fail to see how it diminishes the point I'm making, argue against the content of what I say not the delivery method.

Of course you don't, your hubris wouldn't be able to grasp the fact that your approach detracts from your message. The hypocrisy of saying "argue against the content" is also amusing as that isn't even what you are doing.

Besides, calling a group of people stupid isn't always an insult (contrary to popular belief) - but a genuine estimation of the average intelligence level of the group in question, I'll use the phase "clearly lacking in intelligence understanding, reason, wit or sense" if you would prefer.

What about mouth breathers? Did you mean that in some sort of pseudo intellectual rubbish way too? Your lack of moral fibre to stand by your original insults is terribly disappointing!

 

[Gilly]

Meh, I find supporting changes which will cause actual pain to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable peoples lives to be far more morally reprehensible than simply lacking a little politeness on an internet forum.

I am against the changes, but I am also against pitying those vulnerable people. They don't deserve the likes of you looking down on them.

 

[elmarko]

Of course you don't, your hubris wouldn't be able to grasp the fact that your approach detracts from your message. The hypocrisy of saying "argue against the content" is also amusing as that isn't even what you are doing.

I've posted plenty of content, you are the one who started posting about a perceived insult.

What about mouth breathers? Did you mean that in some sort of pseudo intellectual rubbish way too? Your lack of moral fibre to stand by your original insults is terribly disappointing!

You do know what mouth-breather means I assume?.

On a side note, if you wish to continue this little ditty to do so in trust, I'd prefer this thread to stay on topic.

On the grade scheme of things I won't loose much sleep of the moral fibre lost from labelling a group as stupid on the internet, I believe I will survive it. .

Besides, I fail to see why you seemed to be offended - you don't even hold the flawed views which were referenced (based on your previous posts).

I am against the changes, but I am also against pitying those vulnerable people. They don't deserve the likes of you looking down on them.

Where did I say I pitted & looked down on the vulnerable people?.

I said I pitied stupid people who think it's OK to strip money off the vulnerable as opposed to finding an alternative method which protects the people unable to bear the brunt of the cuts.

I think you may have misread my post a few above.

 

[Gilly]

I may have. I thought you were having a go at those on welfare. If not then I issue a full retraction.

 

[gigeorge]

I support the cap, and hope that the coalition win the vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20936833

Here here

 

[elmarko]

I may have. I thought you were having a go at those on welfare. If not then I issue a full retraction.

Reading it again, if you don't read the entire thread then I can see how it may come across that way. (not greatly worded by me).

 

[RDM]

Putting the ideological argument aside for a moment;

If we want to increase benefits in line with inflation then what do we want to cut or what taxes do we want to raise to pay for it? What economic case can you make for prioritising benefits over other government spending?

 

[elmarko]

Putting the ideological argument aside for a moment;

If we want to increase benefits in line with inflation then what do we want to cut or what taxes do we want to raise to pay for it? What economic case can you make for prioritising benefits over other government spending?

Thanks, back on topic .

You can reallocate benefits from those who don't need them for a start.

Winter fuel allowance, free bus pass, free TV licence for those who are well-off or statistically much more stable financially - all could be scrapped & reallocated to the rest.

But we both know why the above wasn't targeted - it's because the older generation are statistically more likely to vote for certain political parties (compared to the younger population) & how many of them vote (compared to the rest of the population).

It's also politically safe to target people on benefits for three reasons,

1. It has public support (due to the lies published by the media).
2. People on lower income brackets/benefits are less politically active (excluding the old).
3. People on benefits are less likely to vote for the incumbent government.

This is why pensions have been "protected" from the cuts.

It's an ideological decision made ignoring actual need & potential human suffering.

I'd be willing to accept a tax raise for my bracket to help pay for it - as in total honestly a tax increase would not impact on my quality of life at all - but the loss to those on the breadline will be significant.

Many other options exist.

Besides, if wager good money that most of the savings made would be lost in the long-term due to the negative consequences of even more people being pushed into poverty - we already understand the causal links between poor health, crime, violence & poor self-esteem which are highly linked to poverty.

 

[Gilly]

I would still like to know how much it costs to formally means test someone. If you means tested the older generation would it save anything by taking the winter fuel allowance and TV licence, etc. away from them, or would the cost of the actual test outweigh any saving?

 

[Woden]

I would still like to know how much it costs to formally means test someone. If you means tested the older generation would it save anything by taking the winter fuel allowance and TV licence, etc. away from them, or would the cost of the actual test outweigh any saving?

Then, obviously, what we need to do is means test people to see if it is worth means testing them. If so then means test them for their benefits.

Or, more seriously. Some things should have to be applied for. Winter fuel allowance, TV Licence you should have to apply for. Send them a reminder a couple of months before its due, if they don't return the form (ie its more effort than it is worth) then don't pay it.
Alan Sugar has said on TV he doesn't want the winter fuel allowance, he is rich, why does he need it? But there is simply no way for him not to be given it. That is ridiculous.

You can also cut down on a fair bit of wasted administration. My gran gets a letter every few months telling her about her state pension, usually to say it isn't changing. If it ain't changing, why bother? Even when it does change, does it really take 7 pages to explain a £1.07 a year increase?

 

[Swordfish]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/335078/Health-tests-show-how-75-on-sick-benefits-can-work

The problem with this is that the new ESA (Employment Support Allowance) which replaces IB (Incapacity Benefit) has changed how people are examined. They are examined by a company (ATOS) employed directly by DWP and the "checks" carried out are YES/NO questions. Under IB a person was asked detailed information regarding their health and how it impacts on their daily life and their ability to do/not do various tasks. This is no longer the case.

For example one of the tests is to lift your arms above your head one at a time. If you can do that you are deemed to able to able to work with your hands to a certain degree.

For all disabled people that cannot work for health reasons everything is not as black and white as able bodied people who work and pay taxes think. It seems to me that the whole "give them vouchers etc" brigade have no real understanding of how people with disabilities are and how they copy with seemingly simple things in life.

Take my situation for example. My wife and I both worked all of our working life paying full taxes etc and prior to our change of circumstances were earning just under £50K per year between us. My wife took ill and now due to genetic and physical ill health is unable to work as she cannot leave the house without me (panic attacks etc). Just prior to my Wife's ill health I decided to leave my job and retrain and earned my degree during which she supported me, with no help for the state I might add. Just prior to graduation my Wife was diagnosed and my dream of a new job job in my field fell away as I was needed at home.

We now live of an income consisting of he ESA allowance and my part time wages. I choose to work part time rather than claim the other benefits I could for being with my wife as I feel I still have to be doing something other stay at home all day so work part -time so that I can be available to take my wife to her medical appointments (on average every fortnight or so).

From our very limited income (just under £1000 per month) we have to pay our share of rent, council tax, gas and electricity along with food, clothing and our car, which is needed for the appointments.

Now whilst I am all in favour of sorting out the Benefits system, which needs simplified, made fairer, applying regular checks on those claiming and chasing those who defraud the DWP the current Governments way forward is going to be the cause of a lot of major issues.

Heading back to my comments regarding ATOS and the DWP ESA changeover I have it on very good authority the DWP have targets for which ESA group a claimant is put into.

Roughly it breaks down to one 30% told they get nothing and are fully fit to work, 20% put into the "Support group" in which they are acknowledge as being disabled yet the DWP believes there is a job "out there fore them" and 50% in the long term group that cannot work due to illness and are then left unchecked for 5 years. The whole thing is just crazy. For example my Wife has various health issues that require her to see 4 different specialists and also cannot leave the house without me has been placed into the "support group" which means she i supposed to see a job adviser every 6 months to discuss her health plans for work but as she cannot leave the house the DWP phones her.

Nothing would make us happier for me to take work full time in my field with a health and happy Wife back at work but that is not going to happen.

For those chastising people on benefits please think a bit before you launch onto your keyboard.

 

['Harry]

Then, obviously, what we need to do is means test people to see if it is worth means testing them. If so then means test them for their benefits.

Or, more seriously. Some things should have to be applied for. Winter fuel allowance, TV Licence you should have to apply for. Send them a reminder a couple of months before its due, if they don't return the form (ie its more effort than it is worth) then don't pay it.
Alan Sugar has said on TV he doesn't want the winter fuel allowance, he is rich, why does he need it? But there is simply no way for him not to be given it. That is ridiculous.

You can also cut down on a fair bit of wasted administration. My gran gets a letter every few months telling her about her state pension, usually to say it isn't changing. If it ain't changing, why bother? Even when it does change, does it really take 7 pages to explain a £1.07 a year increase?

You wouldn't necessarily be cutting down on administration though would it? If people have to apply for such things, then there would either have to be a new department created within local government to process the information, or a structure change within an existing department.

Or I could be wrong altogether...

People that shouldn't qualify IMO are:

Millionaires (as above - Lord Sugar won't notice £200. He makes more then that in interest per second I'd imagine)

Those still working earning well above a living wage - IE House of Lords/MP's/MD's etc

Middle/Upper Class estate owners in the home counties (and elsewhere)
(though I know some of these are cash poor, so that would have to be worked on)

 

[Irish_Tom]

I thought I'd do some research/calculations to see what life on JSA would be like:

I used the DirectGov Benefits advisor site to work out an estimate of what my girlfriend and I would get if we were both unemployed (but able to work), without children and living in a 1-bedroom flat:

• Housing Benefit – £72.46 per week
• Council Tax Benefit – £11.08 per week
• Jobseeker's Allowance (Contribution based) – £71.00 per week
• Jobseeker's Allowance (Contribution based) for your partner – £71.00 per week

Total: £225.54 per week
That's an annual 'net salary' of £10,825 for two people or the equivalent of one of us working 37.5 hours a week for minimum wage.

The cheapest 1-bed flat I could find from a quick search was £275 a month (so £15 a month left over from the above benefits).
The cheapest council tax band for Portsmouth is 18.85 a week (so assuming our 1-bed flat falls into this band we would have to find £7.77 a month from the above)
After housing, between us, we'd have £150 a month to pay for food and utilities.

Now I think we're pretty frugal with our groceries (we only really buy value branded stuff) and we end up paying about £30 a week.
That leaves £30 a month left for the utilities, not to mention all of the other costs of living. Even if we reduced our weekly shop it wouldn't make a huge difference.

I know you could get additional benefits for children (but then you have to support them) and we could try getting disability allowance or similar, but it doesn't sound like the life of Riley that it's made out to be.

When you consider the above in relation to the cap, 3% in line with inflation would give us an extra £324.75 which sounds like a lot — in fact it's more than someone on the average salary of £26,500 with a 1% rise.

However, to someone on the breadline trying to keep up with inflation that £325 is massive. To someone on an average wage it's not insignificant, but it wouldn't really affect your day-to-day life.

 

[Diagro]

They should simply cut the benefit being given to chavs who keep popping out kids just to get a house and free money.
That way we would be out of debt within 6 months

And the chavs will be dead from starvation

 

[interspaced]

I believe you would get the couple's allowance of £111.45 a week instead of £71 for each of you

 

[RDM]

You can reallocate benefits from those who don't need them for a start.

Would that be enough to pay for it? Especially as you would be increasing the cost of administering the benefits by applying additional means testing. You also have the problem that the more means testing you apply then the more likely you are to have situations where it is disadvantages to do the right thing because it would cost you more.

This is why pensions have been "protected" from the cuts.

It's an ideological decision made ignoring actual need & potential human suffering.

I think the above isn't entirely accurate. There are less options for pensioners to adjust their circumstances so any change needs to be given very long lead times.

Whilst there is certainly an ideological angle why wouldn't there be? That is what politics is about in the end, ideology.

I'd be willing to accept a tax raise for my bracket to help pay for it - as in total honestly a tax increase would not impact on my quality of life at all - but the loss to those on the breadline will be significant.

That is your personal situation though, that wont apply to everyone.

Many other options exist.

I am not really sure if they do. The government is quite limited in its ability raise income and where it spends it.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I am really against means testing as mentioned before, it works against those who strive (damn the brainwashing media have just got me use one of those recently banded about words).

Some of the benefits people are proposing removing for the "richer" were rewarded to the population as things which brought together society reducing boundaries etc, again I say the same message they should not be taken away from those who are financially responsible.

I am ignoring those at this point who do not and will not get opportunites. I could quite easily buy a nice shiny S3 but I deem it poor value for money and am saving instead, there will be a lot more things like this as I go through life, I have seen it for years, those who spend all they earn and sometimes more, aren't saving for a pension etc. They will hit retirement and will be poor, so they should get benefits such as bus passes, winter fuel allowances etc and I shouldn't as I didn't spend every penny I earn't?
This is the big issue, the financially irresponsible are getting benefits by being irresponsible, just the same as the genuinely needy as they appear the same on the face of it. Means testing would only work if you consider what people have earn't over their lifetime and if they have clearly enjoyed the good life spending all the earn they damn well deserve a poor retirement.

Its far too easy to overexpose yourself and then cry about it and expect people to pick up the pieces. One of the biggest differences between middle earners here and the chinese.. Most UK will spend virtually all they earn on starbucks, going out, clothes, shiny phones, ipads, whatever.. where as the chinese will save a good percentage (normally well over 20%) before they consider spending ON LUXURIES.

The expectation of whats normal, whats acceptable etc has just got out of line.
I remember talking to my granddad 10-15 years ago. When he left the army after WW2 he went into the police, both him and my Nan worked yet they rented a bedsit when they got married, thats all they could afford. No house etc, rented a bedsit.
When their finances improved they managed to get their first rented house, money was literally so tight they had to save for anything, every week the wages had to be divvied up between a number of jars for utilities, food etc, if there was anything left it could go into savings to buy for example some furniture.
Our expectations are just so much higher now, partly because we have moved on but also it creates an unrealistic expectation of "the minimum I deserve". This IMO is whats slowly killing us the standards keep creeping up, so the costs follow. NHS is the same, as medical science moves on and gets ever more capable of treating ever more expensive to treat illnesses we have to find more money.

And the biggest issue with the whole welfare mess is its been caused by very few people tinkering and messing about with a system in order to appear more favourable in the eyes of the electorate. Both Labour and the cons are just as guilty as each other, they have both done it and will both do so given the opportunity. The massive extra benefits introduced over the term of the last labour government dragged significantly more people into receiving benefits. Thats despite the lowest paid (via minimum wage) receiving a much higher % wage rise over that period than those above the minimum wage (private and public)
Successive governments have failed to build enough housing, instead they have allowed tax payers money to be diverted into the housing market, helping to create the increased house prices and by the fact its a "mimimum standard of living" if the rents go up simply more tax payers money has to be funnelled to the landlords to pay the rent.
Again Labour just as guilty as the tories. There should be a detailed and coordinated house building programme that ensures we build enough houses, compulsory repurchase building land back from developers if they do not build on it (they own loads but they are sitting on it). Instead of passing more and more taxpayers money to the landlords they should have been building council houses, house prices would not have gone mad without demand, all housing became more squeezed as it was becoming more and more in demand due to supply constraints, reduced supply compared to demand = price rises.

 

['Harry]

I thought I'd do some research/calculations to see what life on JSA would be like:

I used the DirectGov Benefits advisor site to work out an estimate of what my girlfriend and I would get if we were both unemployed (but able to work), without children and living in a 1-bedroom flat:

• Housing Benefit – £72.46 per week
• Council Tax Benefit – £11.08 per week
• Jobseeker's Allowance (Contribution based) – £71.00 per week
• Jobseeker's Allowance (Contribution based) for your partner – £71.00 per week

Total: £225.54 per week
That's an annual 'net salary' of £10,825 for two people or the equivalent of one of us working 37.5 hours a week for minimum wage.

The cheapest 1-bed flat I could find from a quick search was £275 a month (so £15 a month left over from the above benefits).
The cheapest council tax band for Portsmouth is 18.85 a week (so assuming our 1-bed flat falls into this band we would have to find £7.77 a month from the above)
After housing, between us, we'd have £150 a month to pay for food and utilities.

Now I think we're pretty frugal with our groceries (we only really buy value branded stuff) and we end up paying about £30 a week.
That leaves £30 a month left for the utilities, not to mention all of the other costs of living. Even if we reduced our weekly shop it wouldn't make a huge difference.

I know you could get additional benefits for children (but then you have to support them) and we could try getting disability allowance or similar, but it doesn't sound like the life of Riley that it's made out to be.

When you consider the above in relation to the cap, 3% in line with inflation would give us an extra £324.75 which sounds like a lot — in fact it's more than someone on the average salary of £26,500 with a 1% rise.

However, to someone on the breadline trying to keep up with inflation that £325 is massive. To someone on an average wage it's not insignificant, but it wouldn't really affect your day-to-day life.

I posted what it cost me to live on JSA (many pages ago now)..was ignored. People would rather argue over silly little things then look at proper figures supplied by people who know what it's like to live on it.

Also £275 for a flat had to survive on less money renting @ £400pcm But, in the eyes of the have-it-alls, that is acceptable living.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

I guess more than half the people here are not living on JSA, if you was, you might have a different opinion, but while you are on the good side of life you seem to have rose tinted specs on, imo.

I had to for 8 weeks last year; it's impossible to live on, I have no idea where the luxury on welfare myth comes from. It's not possible to pay bills let alone shop for food;
I hardly existed for those few weeks and only got through knowing it was a phase I had to put up with due to things beyond my control.

The job center was a doss hole full of the lowest of the low. From what I saw only every 3rd or 4th person looked like they had any hope of getting even a menial job. From the rest some were either smoking dope right outside the door or had carrier bags with cans in and stank of drinking. The remainder who formed the majority just looked like they should be euthanized, it was like stepping into an episode of Jeremy Kyle crossed with shameless. I think the whole oppressive hopeless feeling in that place just kills any hope some people have left the first time they go in there.

As for the hypochondriac brigade who claim everything and do nothing; I hate them with a passion. I have a type of muscular dystrophy and I'm paralyzed below the knee both legs; held together with carbon fiber so I can walk. Also my hands are affected so I can't do a lot of things or I find things difficult to do. These clowns who pretend to be ill should wake up one day with what I have, they would soon beg for their health back. They make people who are genuinely ill or disabled a target for the tabloids and government who in turn fuel a pubic view amongst the badly educated that disability is another drain on society. I say this; my disability makes me have greater ambition and drive to show myself as equal to anyone.

 

[estebanrey]

whilst I am all in favour of sorting out the Benefits system, which needs simplified, made fairer....

These two thing are mutually exclusive IMO. You can not have a fair AND simple system.

Just take the latest Child Benefits cap, it's simple (based on your wage) but it's unfair (because a single parent over the threshold loses it whilst two working couple earning slightly under each but way over combined still get it).

For a 'fair' benefits system it has to be very complex so it can take all manner of things into account. It needs to have exceptions and bonuses based on personal situations.

And this is one of the problem for government. If you make a system simple then you get criticised for all the inevitable loop holes it will contain. If you make it fair then they get criticised for introducing too much 'red tape' and being costly.