Government Benifit Cap

If your on benefits etc you should only be allowed living costs. No thrills. Food and a roof over your head. The rest you should WORK for. If you want SKY tv, new NIKE trainers or a mobile phone, get a JOB!
 
estebanrey said:
What if you already bought those things before you lost your job then?
Click to expand...

Cancel sky for a start :rolleyes:

And hopefully you weren't stupid enough to buy luxury goods on your credit card without means of paying it off at the end of the month.

Mobile through is a vital job seeking tool, make it work for you!
 
robgmun said:
You go on to understand in the first part then lose it again on the second :confused::confused::confused:

Yes, including extra help for travel and drycleaning and other odds and ends i've ended up with 500 on my first day of work, seperate entirely from my savings and redundancy. It's worth saying through jsa on it's own is 71 per week in London. I didn't know it was lower outside.

Bad move bringing in class here, as you're post is about to fall apart. I come from a working class background. My dad was a waiter all his life, worked 6 days a week throughout the 80's and 90's and at 68 has completely paid off his house, i've followed his example and not waste money on crap.

Financial privilege is avaliable to anyone in the UK if they have the right attitude to work and life. How did i do it? No i wasn't born into a middle class family with a sliver spoon in my mouth. My first holiday outside the country wasn't until i was 22. I got amazing grades in a horrible school where you got bullied if you were bright. But i carried on and got to Uni and got a degree in Physics and a Masters in IT. And worked my ass off. Self made man from the very beginning. So you can stuff you class up your jackse
Click to expand...

Well, if you'd made yourself clear from the outset it could have saved a lot of confusion (as you are now implying).

As for the class thing - did you not read what I said about it?

WITHOUT ALLUDING TO DISTINCTIONS OF CLASS

Or don't you understand what I said?
The key to what I said is in the first word 'Without'.

Clearly in the context of being on the dole you were speaking from a 'position of financial privilege'.

Add the two parts of the sentence together: "Without alluding to distinctions of class, I'd say you are clearly speaking from a position of financial privilege." and what you get is a removal of intent and distinction in the first part so that the use of the word 'privilege' is not misunderstood with its accepted social connotations - that are rife in a topic about benefits and those who would seek to cut them.

However you just fell off your high horse, flat on your face.
I, nor anyone else here is interested in your work ethic, or how your dad worked and paid for his house or how you inherited his fiscal prudence or how you got good grades at school when that sort of thing gets you bullied blah blah blah blah blah

You talk a lot, but you don't say much. Certainly not a lot that is relevant to the topic under discussion. In fact much of what you've contributed to this thread in the last page or so has opened more holes in your train of thought and points of view to show that you don't really know much about how it is for many people on state benefits.

This doesn't deny you the right to have your say, it just means I don't give your thoughts much credence as they seem to mix fact for opinion too quickly.
In your case, I'd say there's nothing worse than the arrogance of hubris which you made abundantly clear in your last few sentences.
 
Mr Jack said:
This is nothing more than punishing the poorest for the failure of repeated governments to deal with the price of housing. Money that is reaped primarily by the rich. Remember that money paid in housing benefit goes to the owner of the property not the person living in it.

The ConDem's presentation is misleading to the point of dishonesty. As usual they're simply ignoring the fact that people in work continue to see multiple benefits paid to them. Since this cap almost exclusively effects people with several children, and mostly single mothers with several children, they'd still get child benefit if they were working and likely working tax credit and child tax credit on top of the "average" wage. I put "average" in quotes because the cap will, almost exclusively, hit people living in areas where the average wage is higher because, again, it's going on housing not on living costs.

The only alternative available to those hit is to move. There will be no money nor help to move; no provision for dealing with the fractured support network resulting from leaving their communities; no assistant for children shifted to new schools in new areas where they have no friends; no extra cash for the increased costs of visiting friends and families and so on.

It's cruel; it's pointless since it will save precious little money and it's based on bad politics.
Click to expand...

This^^ well said dude.
 
spookywillow said:
My brother now runs his own business and his wife is a TA and doing training to become a real teacher yet they are struggling even more than they did before as they get no benefits at all now.
Click to expand...

No offense but he clearly isn't very good at running his own business as he'd have no reason to claim for benefits, and the taxpayer shouldn't have to pick up his tab because of it. As for his wife, you don't get support for going to College and in the long run you don't get support for going to Uni (apart from them student loans everyone spends on car leases and booze) nor should you get support for training. If the company doesn't feel like paying somebody in training a fair wage then again, that isn't down to the taxpayer to sort out. My mother is a TA training to become a teacher, and she can only get a few hours a day part time, they won't give her anymore. My father works way beyond full time as a result, and I bring in what I can to fill the gaps and allow my mother to get the job she wants and we struggle like hell yet do not look at the government for help. If your brother isn't bringing enough in through his own business to support his wife while she trains, then it's time to get into employment until they are in a position to sustain themselves, not look to the government to pick up the tab.

No offense intended, btw.
 
Mr Jack said:
This is nothing more than punishing the poorest for the failure of repeated governments to deal with the price of housing. Money that is reaped primarily by the rich. Remember that money paid in housing benefit goes to the owner of the property not the person living in it.

The ConDem's presentation is misleading to the point of dishonesty. As usual they're simply ignoring the fact that people in work continue to see multiple benefits paid to them. Since this cap almost exclusively effects people with several children, and mostly single mothers with several children, they'd still get child benefit if they were working and likely working tax credit and child tax credit on top of the "average" wage. I put "average" in quotes because the cap will, almost exclusively, hit people living in areas where the average wage is higher because, again, it's going on housing not on living costs.

The only alternative available to those hit is to move. There will be no money nor help to move; no provision for dealing with the fractured support network resulting from leaving their communities; no assistant for children shifted to new schools in new areas where they have no friends; no extra cash for the increased costs of visiting friends and families and so on.

It's cruel; it's pointless since it will save precious little money and it's based on bad politics.
Click to expand...

The other alternative to those about to be hit is get a job, as you say in work benefits will be available. It does not need to be full time to qualify.

There is money and assistance available for removal costs if you find yourself in the position whereby you cannot afford to live, or find suitable employment in the area that you live so that is a fallacy.

The point is not to save a lot of money, the point is to get people off a lifetime of benefit dependance and back to working.

It is not bad politics because it is popular and however you spin it, the majority of people and that includes working class support the principle.

It is not cruel because it has been sensibly pitched at levels which are comparable or better than most working peoples wages and benefits.
 
estebanrey said:
What if you already bought those things before you lost your job then?
Click to expand...

I was thinking that. I came out of work a few week back and I already had those things in place on account of me earning my way for 30+ years. So I have a new car, nice TV. etc.

What really irritates me is the "unemployed = scumbag" bandwagon that is being peddled that everyman and his dog (who is too lazy to think for themselves) is happy to jump on. Maybe I should ditch my shirt and trousers and swap them for joggy bottoms, baseball-cap, and trainers so I fit the sweeping statements and stereotypes. I think it makes people feel better about themselves for pitching into the poor if they can paint a picture in their mind, that if someone is out of work they are a larger swilling, druggie. Yeah they don't deserve any help do they??

What about people who have worked for the majority of their adult life only to be made redundant? They may well be to old to retrain to do something else, or not have skills that are easily transferable. The jobs market is so saturated they will have real problems making themselves attractive to would be employers. For each one of those who's worked for 30+ years they've probably paid 10's if not 100's of thousands into the system. What should we do with them, just throw them into the pit as well as they've served their purpose?

People have been duped, or wanted to be duped into believing that it's all the folk claiming benefits who have screwed the country up. But it's simply not true. The corporate criminals who ran the banks and financial sector destroyed the economy. Just look at Barclays, mis-selling PPI, fixing the Libor rate, and fraud and that only counting the stuff that made the headlines. They targeted people and sold them products they knew they could not afford by the trillion £. One of the main reasons the benefit bill has climbed is the number of people earning part-time minimal wages, needing to be propped up because of failing industry or losing the their jobs to redundancy due to the loss of a business. The notion that if you earned £30K a year and the only job available is minimum wage so you should take it to "mend" the spending on benefits is laughable. The way to mend the economy is create more jobs that pay £30K so it puts money back into the system.
 
Last edited:
DampDog said:
I was thinking that. I came out of work a few week back and I already had those things in place on account of me earning my way for 30+ years. So I have a new car, nice TV. etc.

What really irritates me is the "unemployed = scumbag" bandwagon that is being peddled that everyman and his dog (who is too lazy to think for themselves) is happy to jump on. Maybe I should ditch my shirt and trousers and swap them for joggy bottoms, baseball-cap, and trainers so I fit the sweeping statements and stereotypes. I think it makes people feel better about themselves for pitching into the poor if they can paint a picture in their mind, that if someone is out of work they are a larger swilling, druggie. Yeah they don't deserve any help do they??

What about people who have worked for the majority of their adult life only to be made redundant? They may well be to old to retrain to do something else, or not have skills that are easily transferable. The jobs market is so saturated they will have real problems making themselves attractive to would be employers. For each one of those who's worked for 30+ years they've probably paid 10's if not 100's of thousands into the system. What should we do with them, just throw them into the pit as well as they've served their purpose?

People have been duped, or wanted to be duped into believing that it's all the folk claiming benefits who have screwed the country up. But it's simply not true. The corporate criminals who ran the banks and financial sector destroyed the economy. Just look at Barclays, mis-selling PPI, fixing the Libor rate, and fraud and that only counting the stuff that made the headlines. They targeted people and sold them products they knew they could not afford by the trillion £. One of the main reasons the benefit bill has climbed is the number of people earning part-time minimal wages, needing to be propped up because of failing industry or losing the their jobs to redundancy due to the loss of a business. The notion that if you earned £30K a year and the only job available is minimum wage so you should take it to "mend" the spending on benefits is laughable. The way to mend the economy is create more jobs that pay £30K so it puts money back into the system.
Click to expand...

The joke is that most people claiming benefits are actually in work.

http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/truthandliesaboutpoverty/

People bashing the poor in here need to read some actual facts on poor people.
 
realBabelfish said:
about 75% of MPs are landlords. wonder why they arent in any big rush to change these laws? why build houses at tax payer expense when you can invest in a house and let the gov pay off your mortgage in 10 years. rinse and repeat and in no time you own loads of houses.

one of the guys i used to work with owned around 100 houses in my county. he only came into work to pass the time. he made a mint on being a landlord.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's the extortionate amount of rent the greedy landlords are charging that are driving up the benefit bill, along with C.Tax.
 
hurfdurf said:
The joke is that most people claiming benefits are actually in work.

http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/truthandliesaboutpoverty/

People bashing the poor in here need to read some actual facts on poor people.
Click to expand...

And as long as you are working 16hrs / week then there is no cap on benefits.

So I wonder if it can work out that someone doing 16hrs on min wage + benefits would still bring home more than someone doing 40hrs a week on a low wage, but enough to not be entitled to benefits...

Wonder what the 'it's not fair my taxes get spent on....' brigade would say about that :p
 
DampDog said:
I was thinking that. I came out of work a few week back and I already had those things in place on account of me earning my way for 30+ years. So I have a new car, nice TV. etc.

What really irritates me is the "unemployed = scumbag" bandwagon that is being peddled that everyman and his dog (who is too lazy to think for themselves) is happy to jump on. Maybe I should ditch my shirt and trousers and swap them for joggy bottoms, baseball-cap, and trainers so I fit the sweeping statements and stereotypes. I think it makes people feel better about themselves for pitching into the poor if they can paint a picture in their mind, that if someone is out of work they are a larger swilling, druggie. Yeah they don't deserve any help do they??
.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are saying there is a distinction between you and the the unemployable scum underclass, but you've missed out the most important thing that makes you different from them, the fact you are trying to get a job.
 
Freakbro said:
So I wonder if it can work out that someone doing 16hrs on min wage + benefits would still bring home more than someone doing 40hrs a week on a low wage, but enough to not be entitled to benefits...

Wonder what the 'it's not fair my taxes get spent on....' brigade would say about that :p
Click to expand...

But it is unfair, how can it not be? I'd be bouncing off the walls if I worked 40+ hours a week and the bloke next door had more disposable income than me for doing less than 16 hours. It can't be right. But everyone has the stick out and is beating those claiming the benefits, not the system that's causing the problem. The reforms coming through aren't aimed at making the system work better for those who need it, they're being implemented to cut costs and that's it. There are 1000's of people who have been milking the system for years. I cannot believe for one second that "system" isn't aware who they are. They need to be looked at first. Those that are working "on the side" should be imo targeted first because they really are stealing from the system.
 
hurfdurf said:
"The poors should be punished for being poor otherwise they won't know being poor is bad" - a real opinion some people in here seem to have.
Click to expand...

nothing to do with bashing the poor... £350 cap per week for single people, £500 per week cap for couples or single parents is still pretty generous.

The correct incentives are there - there is now a strong disincentive to not have kids you can't afford, not to live in expensive accommodation expecting the tax payer to foot the bill and a stronger incentive to actively seek work.
 
D.P. said:
That is why it needs to be a system like is used is many European countries.

If you loose your job then for a certain amount of time 18-24months typically, you are paid around 60-80% of your previous salary up to a max figure (which is typically pretty high, would be like £80-100k). You have that time to find a new job, move,to a new city where the job is located etc. n this time you are also paid to go on training and educational courses. If you enter full time education th clock is stopped.


If after that time you have failed to find employment you basically are declared bankrupt. You might have to sell your house and possessions, community housing will be provided, often fully catered. Financial allowances are minimal because your main living requires (shelter, food, utilities) are paid for.
Again, any training and education will be paid for to enable you to get back it n the street.



In this way people who loose their job have the dignity to carry on living while they search for a job. With the clock ticking they don't hang about doing nothing but are extremely proactive. If they fail to get a job then society supports their basic rights and requires ith shelter, food, heating, medical services as well as support to gain them employment such as training, education.
Click to expand...

I would happily support this approach, but it would be highly unpopular in the uk as it involves too much personal responsibility for many people.
PHP:
 
Freakbro said:
And as long as you are working 16hrs / week then there is no cap on benefits.

So I wonder if it can work out that someone doing 16hrs on min wage + benefits would still bring home more than someone doing 40hrs a week on a low wage, but enough to not be entitled to benefits...

Wonder what the 'it's not fair my taxes get spent on....' brigade would say about that :p
Click to expand...

quite easily if they live in the right London borough....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom