Poll: Benefit cap vote.

[diamount]

Hey, he's criticizing the critique-er, not critiquing the critique-er!

I just don't like grammar nazis.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

---

 

[Hitman_Leon]

Me & the Mrs had to go on a joint jsa claim 3 years ago both lost our job's for 3/4 month's we found it hard to live off it only due to her mum helping us out could we do it
Lucky for us my partner got a job in a care home ( i did the stay at home look after son )
now hes gearing up to go to full time school and i'm spamming my cv to every & any job i can

Yet i see on facebook daily single mum's & couples buying 3d 50inch tv's ( crates of wine ) and drug's yet are all ment to be on JSA

all live in house's have latest phone's ( one just bought her kid an ipad )

From what I have seen its all a front; these people live way beyond their means. Highstreet shops with credit lines and interest that comes with knee pads but no vaseline; loan companies that come with the same deals, these are where the bought new items arrive from. The diet eaten by them is totally garbage at best, feeding their poor offspring repeated piles of mystery fat soaked rubbish with no variety or healthy choices. The reason people think they have means is because that is what these people want others to think. It's mostly an illusion of comfortable living; those in it know it is a total lie but choose to live that lie so they can be perceived as having some kind of status among their peers. They live in an "i've got" world where possession of the latest gadget is the only ambition most have, a shallow and mean selfish sub culture.

 

[Mr Jack]

• 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

As noted by other's you'd get the lower couples rate of Jobseeker's allowance, meaning your calculation is out by approximately £1500.

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.

According to the online calculators I can find, this would be topped up by £3060 in working tax credits and £135 in housing benefit but lose about £700 in tax. I think you'd also be able to claim single occupant discount to council tax worth 25% of the total value.

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).

You can only get the amount you're actually paying in housing benefit, you can no longer get to keep some of the excess.

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.

Of the listed benefits, the cap would only apply to the Jobseekers component, not housing benefit or council tax benefit - but note that Tory policies may impact both of those for some people (e.g. in Wales the unemployed will now pay 10% of the normal council tax rate.

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.

Indeed.

 

[Amleto]

According to the online calculators I can find, this would be topped up by £3060 in working tax credits and £135 in housing benefit but lose about £700 in tax. I think you'd also be able to claim single occupant discount to council tax worth 25% of the total value.

Not if there are two+ adults that aren't full time students (or otherwise exempt).

 

[grumpysculler]

What should happen is that the government should legislate for a living wage rather than a **** poor minimum then we wouldnt need tax credits for working people

If that is the solution, then why are tax credits available on incomes of up to ~£65k? A living wage wouldn't affect the income of many people who receive tax credits. Tax credits was a massive drain on cash by labour and it needs fixed. Universal credit will go some way towards that (there isn't even a savings test on tax credits).

(see http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/p...-tables/work-and-child/work-pay-childcare.htm )

I find all the discussion of means-testing slightly amusing given that the original architect of the welfare state opposed it:

It is, first and foremost, a plan of insurance - of giving in return for contributions benefits up to subsistence level, as of right and without means test, so that individuals may build freely upon it.

The problem is that now we have high marginal tax rates caused by means tests (mine is 74%) and there is no perception of a return based on contributions. Means testing has created a trap and also creates the impression of scroungers. The uncapped (or high cap) nature of some benefits ensures that it is possible to bring in far more than the "subsistence level" in a number of situations.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Well if you want to be super accurate it should be....

(225.54 * (365.25 / 7)) / 12 = £980.70 per month

*Before anyone asks, it's 365.25 because leap years means there are on average 365.25 days a year, told you I was being super accurate

Its calculation and receipt is weekly, therefore no - it'll be (225.54*52)/12 = £977.34, leap year or not.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

its still taking money away from 60% of working families, inclusive of the minute allowance increase, check the BBC/Guardian website its all there

it doesnt offset it at all

What should happen is that the government should legislate for a living wage rather than a **** poor minimum then we wouldnt need tax credits for working people

Then prepared for even greater levels of unemployment and social discourse. Minimum wages at the worst cost jobs, and at the least slows down rate of job growth.

 

[Irish_Tom]

I am confus.

Quite right, and now I am too!

No idea what I did to end up with £150 left over. That will teach me to rush these things on my lunch break.

£550 isn't a huge sum to cover food, utilities and expenses for two people and as Mr. Jack explained, it would actually be less than this due to the couples JSA rate…

I thought £150 was impossible, turns out it is.

 

[Mr Jack]

Not if there are two+ adults that aren't full time students (or otherwise exempt).

When I was unemployed and living with a friend we got the discount, however I don't know what happens with couples?

 

[MrMoonX]

Then prepared for even greater levels of unemployment and social discourse. Minimum wages at the worst cost jobs, and at the least slows down rate of job growth.

you really are mad if you think minimum wage is a bad thing, its not even possible to live independently on it is it really

 

[Mr Jack]

Then prepared for even greater levels of unemployment and social discourse. Minimum wages at the worst cost jobs, and at the least slows down rate of job growth.

Tosh and piffle. Why do right wingers keep spewing this drivel in the face of the evidence? The evidence is overwhelmingly that the minimum wage has had little or no impact on employment levels*. Nor does evidence from other countries give any reason to believe modest rises in the minimum wage would significantly impact employment.

Here's a nice summary report. You can go hunting through the primary literature if you like. It overwhelming supports the view that minimum wages in developed nations have had little or no impact on employment.

* - although there is some evidence of a resulting drop in hours words and benefits for the lower paid; the overall effect has been improved remuneration and a reduction in inequality at the lower end.

 

[Amleto]

When I was unemployed and living with a friend we got the discount, however I don't know what happens with couples?

you shouldn't have done afaik.

 

[estebanrey]

Its calculation and receipt is weekly, therefore no - it'll be (225.54*52)/12 = £977.34, leap year or not.

Eh? My calculation was working it out weekly the converting that to an average month.

There are not 52 weeks in a year, there are 52.18 on average (or 52.14 if you ignore the existence of leap years but why would you?). That's what the "365.25/7" in my formula was doing.

You are saying it's wrong to use 4 weeks in a month which is correct, yet you making the same principle mistake with weeks in the year by assuming it's 52. If it was 52, that would equal 364 days in a year.

So, I was right...

(225.54 * (365.25 / 7)) / 12 = £980.70 per month

..or if you prefer...

225.54*52.18 / 12 = £980.72 (2p is added due to the rounding of weeks in a year)

 

[Mr Jack]

you shouldn't have done afaik.

*shrug* That's what they assessed it as, we gave them all the information. It was a very long time ago, it may be things have changed?

 

[mmj_uk]

If the private sector was left to its own devices, ie a totally free market then wages would decline to next to nothing. The public sector has to lead in that area and the government has to regulate to keep things above unsafe minimums.

Indeed, rather than bringing public sector pay down to private levels they should be working to get the private sector to pay more, people will have more money to spend and it will give a boost to the economy. There's too much money going into too few pockets.

 

[interspaced]

When I was unemployed and living with a friend we got the discount, however I don't know what happens with couples?

You may have got the second adult rebate that grants 25% if the second adult is unemployed though this is being disposed of by some councils in april.

 

[arekgreenman888]

I do not support the cap, I think it's a stupid idea, the benefits that people that need them are getting aren't enough already.

Public sector wages are not a fair reflection on benefits given that public sector wages are astronomically high in comparison to private.

Right on Gilly, benefits are too low as is. I propose 8% increase in benefits!

So which option do I choose to increase benefits?

 

[muon]

https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata...&ifdim=country_group&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Financially responsible? Most of the people I listed for example were born into money. Lords/peers etc are primarily well-to-do types that never wanted for anything at any stage of their life. It's also much much easier to be financially responsible if you have disposable income to start with. Many scrape buy with next to nothing once bills have been paid. You can't really deny hard-working, but poorly paid people a present/luxury once in a while surely? The only real incentive to work is to make a better life for yourself, if you work just to pay bills, what is the point?


So, why give people something if they have no use for it? That makes zero sense. £200 to someone on the breadline makes a massive difference. Equality is all well and good, but it shouldn't ever be placed above rational thinking.

You and I won't agree on such things though, because we'll of had very different experiences of the world. I grew up in abject poverty, was never any guarantee that food was available from one day to the next etc I've been at the bottom, anyone who wishes such things on another person needs to live such a life for a while. They'd soon change their tone.

Your problem seems to be your so blinded by something about poor people being unfairly treated your reading stuff thats not there and making incorrect statements. I am referring to people who earn't good money relying on the safety net who SHOULD be able to provide for themselves for sometime should something bad happen, these are the worst people for having no money yet blowing it on cars, gadgets, holidays etc. I know people who have earn't over £60k for years and are still technically broke with absolutely no reason to be, apart from the spend it all mentality.

I also wasn't referring to a few people about the means testing, I mean the majority of the population where there is very little difference between what they start with and what they end with. A few peers etc are not the issue, but penalising those who have saved for their retirement for doing so seems completely and utterly idiotic as it will simply encourage the bad bahaviour and not the good. You already hear people saying they will spend it all as then when they retire someone will have to pay for them to live, those are the sort of people who should be means tested against their lifetime earnings, earn over £xxxx when going to ask for freebies should be met with nope sorry you have already had £xxxx income in your life you don't deserve money from the state.

And by the way the reason to work is to live, as in life. No one should think they are owed a certain level of lifestyle, its that kind of rubbish thats helping to drain the coffers, the entitlement culture.