Government Benifit Cap

[spookywillow]

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.

He's not on benefits now or did you miss that bit? He came off benefits as he started his own business and he has less money than before, sadly his business is not doing so well (website design) as it was when he first started. His wife works full time as a TA and gets trained at the school. He has the option to just knock the business on the head and go back on DLA but he wont

Originally Posted by robgmun View Post
You go on to understand in the first part then lose it again on the second

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.

So in 2 months you claimed approx £640 in JSA plus extra money for travel and dry cleaning and you ended up with £500 left in your bank on the first day of work, Sounds to me like you milked it really well then, claiming expenses that you could afford out of your benefits. It's people like you who ruin it for others who cannot make ends meet on JSA.

I'm guessing though as you had savings that you used some of that to pay for things during your unemployment, I doubt you would have £500 left over if you purely lived on benefits.

 

[DampDog]

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.

Am I??

I finished work (ill health grounds) following a second heart attack so my health's taken a fair battering with on thing and another. I've been bumped onto ESA for the moment, and doing a full time job is out of the question. So do I call it a day and put my health first OR try and find a part-time position that that I cam manage? The problem with most part-time positions is that unless you're lucky the majority are NMW or close.

The "Am I" wasn't intended to be sarcastic, just to reflect that I am lost as which is the best way to proceed on a personal level. If I was a few years older, I'd draw my pension early and not bother the system at all.

I've only posted because I have time on my hands a plenty and having fallen into the benefits system after well over 30 years in work, I'm sick to death of the unemployed = sumbag rhetoric gushing from this forum. YES there are scumbags, but more often than not they're "there but for the grace of god, go I" just like the rest of us.

Sorry, bit self indulgent, but what the hey!
I'll get me coat..

 

[DampDog]

Double post, BFT... Big Fat Fingers..

 

[Amp34]

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.

The other joke is this thread isn't about those people... It's solely about capping benefits for those that DON'T work...

 

[Amp34]

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.

It's not just older people with the problem, it's the young as well. Youth (under 25) unemployment is rediculously high and more of a wordy to me than 50 something's not being able to get another job, they have a whole working life ahead of them, many with good qualifications that may end up in the unemployment cycle for their whole lives if not helped. In part blame governments trying to force everyone into uni (and now we realise that's not a good idea still propping up unis as they "can't fail") rather than advocating apprenticeships and other forms of training. I had a year of that and know how it feels, luckily I managed to get out, though no help of the job centre I may add.

Also having been a student for 5 years I still don't understand how someone not paying for their housing can't live on JSA alone... . Most students live on substantiallly less than that.

 

[elmarko]

I can't deny that, my parents were great role models.

Which undermines your theory of being self-made.

But doesn't that prove more then anything else is that it's people that are then makers of there own destiny and shouldn't blame governments for there own faults?

So if you didn't have good role models & grew up in a dysfunctional family it would be your fault?.

Anybody who had a worse upbringing than you is lazy?

How about people who were born with very rich parents who lavished them with luxuries?, are you lazy/scum compared to them?.

Also makers of there own destiny... urrgh... really?.

The other joke is this thread isn't about those people... It's solely about capping benefits for those that DON'T work...

You do know we have more people looking for work than jobs available don't you?.

Even if every single job seeker was amazing we would still have people claiming JSA & will forever until we have enough jobs to go around.

 

[oldbag]

Slightly ot, but I think unless you get a degree from the top 20 universities in something meaningful, they are a big waste of money. The other problem is that A levels and GCSEs aren't considered (by employers) to be worth much, so everyone have/has been doing degrees and many have been devalued. Not every job needs a degree. The whole education system needs reform, but that entirely another issue.

 

[DampDog]

It's not just older people with the problem, it's the young as well.

+1.. I didn't mean to ignore how tough it is to get into a career at the moment. It's just easier to comment on how things affect you personally.

 

[bledd]

How the hell do people get £350 per week?

A few years ago, I was unable to work due to a pretty severe medical condition, I was out of work for a year whilst I recovered and had operations. I had £75 a week incapacity benefit, and £200 a month towards my rent. That was it.. ~£134 a week total.

I spent all my savings just on 'living' for that year and in the end was super broke.

 

[Mr Jack]

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.

The idea that the majority of the unemployed are not seeking work is rubbish. The fact is that very few of the unemployed are long term unemployed and the majority of those who are have recently recovered from long term illness, or are close to retirement having been made redundant from long term careers in which they paid substantial sums of money into the system.

There are, of course, isolated examples of people who are avoiding work but the idea that make up a significant proportion of the unemployed is a complete fantasy.

 

[elmarko]

The idea that the majority of the unemployed are not seeking work is rubbish. The fact is that very few of the unemployed are long term unemployed and the majority of those who are have recently recovered from long term illness, or are close to retirement having been made redundant from long term careers in which they paid substantial sums of money into the system.

There are, of course, isolated examples of people who are avoiding work but the idea that make up a significant proportion of the unemployed is a complete fantasy.

That part of the problem, identity of the working class has been replaced with people who don't work & the stereotype expanded to include pretty much anybody on a lower income than the person in question.

Very intelligent move to distance the average worker from the working class (the last few governments have done), to sell the myth they are infact middle class (when in reality they are not).

 

[dowie]

How the hell do people get £350 per week?

A few years ago, I was unable to work due to a pretty severe medical condition, I was out of work for a year whilst I recovered and had operations. I had £75 a week incapacity benefit, and £200 a month towards my rent. That was it.. ~£134 a week total.

I spent all my savings just on 'living' for that year and in the end was super broke.

that's kind of the problem... there are obviously people out there getting in excess of £350 a week ergo there are people complaining about the cap. In reality if you're getting in excess of £350 a week as a single person (disabled people are exempt from this cap and single parents have a higher £500 a week limit) then you're getting way too much in the way of handouts.

 

[Conanius]

I think that this is a step in the right direction.

It is my belief at the moment that many people rely for a lifetime on benefits to support or in some cases totally fund their lifestyle. This is grosly unfair on those who don't get benefits and have to make choices about what they can, and can not have.

Prime examples are things like Sky or Cable, and contract mobile phones. These ARE NOT essential items. Freeview has many channels, and people DO NOT need the 300+ channels that Sky or Cable offer. A cheap £10 pay as you go mobile, with a credit top up every few months to keep the number active to recieve calls is all that you need.

I'd gladly support tax incentives for major companies to offer cheap Phone/BB/Mobile services to people on benefits to help bring down their cost of living.

Personally, I'd like to see a move away from benefits being given totally in cash, and some (not all, but a decent %) being given in allotted vouchers to pay for utilities and food, true essentials. The food vouchers should also NOT be usable for alcohol or cigarettes. These again are NOT essential items and should be taken from any 'spare' cash that there might be (I actually feel angry thinking there should be any 'spare' cash from a state handout !!).

Life is bloody difficult, but people need a serious reality check if they think other people should be paying for their house/food/booze/etc on a long term basis. Get a job. Even if it is wiping up spillages in Tescos/Loading the bin lorry/picking up litter/whatever. If that job can't fund 60" plasma/3 bed house/mobile phones/booze/fags/drugs/sky/etc then realise that everyone else has to budget too !!

I would happily see a 'tailing off' of benefits introduced for people who manage to get off state support, and even something as unpopular as a 'lump sum' for staying off completely for a period (Lets say the benefits tail down over 12 months, and then 12 months later they get a £250-£500/whatever) This would give them a bit a boost to get back into employment, and a reward for managing to stay off state coffers. Obviously you'd need to stop people going in a loop and exploiting this (one time only or somesuch)

 

[Mr Jack]

I'm not in favour of unemployed/unemployable people receiving large amounts of money, because I can spot the correlation between social support and the ridiculous amounts of tax the rest of us pay.

Firstly, we don't pay "ridiculous amounts of tax"; UK tax rates are low compared to our more successful European neighbours.

Secondly, completely abolishing all benefits targeted to the unemployed would save, at most, £20bn a year. That's about a 30th of total tax take. That's an r² of roughly 0.03. Yup, you really spotted the correlation there.

Finally, I'd note that there's plenty of evidence that the costs resulting from lawlessness, etc. from not supporting the unemployable are higher than the costs of looking after them.

 

[JonJ678]

You do know we have more people looking for work than jobs available don't you?

This would appear to be a bigger problem than the precise amount an unemployed person can claim. There aren't that many solutions though.

1/ make lots of public sector jobs, which don't actually do anything, in order to drive unemployment down. No increase in "useful" employment
2/ hide the unemployed in the NHS (see 1) or universities. No increase in "useful" employment here either
3/ drive the unemployed from our shores and into France. Cutting benefits hard enough would do this.
4/ develop low tech industry in the UK - assembly line/factory type of stuff. That seems the most credible option, but is badly in conflict with minimum wage and H&S legislation

Giving unemployed people much less money and running advertising campaigns about how nice it is in other countries looks the most viable option.

Firstly, we don't pay "ridiculous amounts of tax"; UK tax rates are low compared to our more successful European neighbours.

Do we not? There is the 8k ish tax free window at the start. Once you're past that...
20% income tax, 10% national insurance, 10% student loan (not for everyone, just younger people)
At the 35k point, the income tax goes up to 40% but the NI drops to roughly zero. At some point, student loan is repaid. At 100k, the tax free window closes.

After the first 8k, people in the UK are taxed at 40%
Then we lose 1.5k pa to council tax. This is particularly galling as it comes off net, not gross
Then the price of imported things has import tax applied
Then everything we buy has some amount of VAT applied

I know tax is higher in Norway. That's somewhat balanced by salaries being much higher too. What successful EU countries do you think pay more tax than us?

 

[elmarko]

This would appear to be a bigger problem than the precise amount an unemployed person can claim. There aren't that many solutions though.?

That we can agree on.

1/ make lots of public sector jobs, which don't actually do anything, in order to drive unemployment down. No increase in "useful" employment

Plenty of things which need doing, just determining how useful they are is another matter.

One could create a series of public/worker owned collaboratives to solve a multitude of social issues (anti-social behaviour, education for the poorest in society (things such as sure-start) - rehabilitation programmes & many other things.

While they don't have a direct immediate impact they have a significant long term economic benefit (Along with countless positive externalities).

I mean, what's the difference between providing a manufacturing company with X subsidy (so they can hire 500 workers) or paying 500 people JSA? if the total amounts end up the same for the government (but the difference being increased demand & less negative social problems resulting from unemployment).

The problem with only looking at the bottom line (economically) for any transaction or plan is that the long term economic benefits are ignored along with the negative externalities.

2/ hide the unemployed in the NHS (see 1) or universities. No increase in "useful" employment here either

I agree, paid skilled apprenitiships & encouragement into the sciences (Along with expanding government R&D) would be prefereable.

So if people want to study maths/physics or engineering great - media studies... not so great .

3/ drive the unemployed from our shores and into France. Cutting benefits hard enough would do this.

Some kind of plough would be needed to push them off beachy head.

4/ develop low tech industry in the UK - assembly line/factory type of stuff. That seems the most credible option, but is badly in conflict with minimum wage and H&S legislation

Why would it have to be low-tech?, greater subsidy in the industry sector would for one reduce our reliance on the finance sector.

It might also create some jobs outside of London or north of the Watford gap.

Giving unemployed people much less money and running advertising campaigns about how nice it is in other countries looks the most viable option.

Easiest solution, which will most likely cost us more in increased crime & reduced social cohesion in the long term - but hey it's just the taxpayer who has to pay for that... oh wait...

Do we not? There is the 8k ish tax free window at the start. Once you're past that...
20% income tax, 10% national insurance, 10% student loan (not for everyone, just younger people)
At the 35k point, the income tax goes up to 40% but the NI drops to roughly zero. At some point, student loan is repaid. At 100k, the tax free window closes.

After the first 8k, people in the UK are taxed at 40%
Then we lose 1.5k pa to council tax. This is particularly galling as it comes off net, not gross
Then the price of imported things has import tax applied
Then everything we buy has some amount of VAT applied

I know tax is higher in Norway. That's somewhat balanced by salaries being much higher too. What successful EU countries do you think pay more tax than us?

I'd guess he is referring to the top rate & corporation tax or CGT.

 

[Amp34]

You do know we have more people looking for work than jobs available don't you?.

Even if every single job seeker was amazing we would still have people claiming JSA & will forever until we have enough jobs to go around.

Did you see my post on the subject earlier in the thread?

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24125358&postcount=112

Yet there are some areas in this country with fewer applicants than jobs and whole industries begging for qualified people to work in them. Unfortunately a lot of people don't want to move. It's not that the jobs market is bad as such, rather the jobs aren't evenly spread around and or there aren't enough qualified people for those jobs. (The latter being especially hit by the governments reduction in university and research funding- scholarships to masters courses have been butchered)

Yes, there are les jobs than people employed, like all times, however there are Leo areas of the country and industries that are seriously short of people to do those jobs, with or without the need for qualifications.

What I find interesting is that there are apparently millions who can't get low paid jobs yet a significant portion of the people working in bars/restaurants in London are not from the UK.

If you can't find the job you want in your area then either find a different type of job or MOVE! Very little excuse if you are single, considering many millions do just at already.

 

[Amp34]

How the hell do people get £350 per week?

A few years ago, I was unable to work due to a pretty severe medical condition, I was out of work for a year whilst I recovered and had operations. I had £75 a week incapacity benefit, and £200 a month towards my rent. That was it.. ~£134 a week total.

I spent all my savings just on 'living' for that year and in the end was super broke.

The point is (as both sides appear to be missing) there aren't that many people getting that sum, which is he whole point. It's designed to cap it for the few getting disproportionate amounts of money.

 

[Mr Jack]

1/ make lots of public sector jobs, which don't actually do anything, in order to drive unemployment down. No increase in "useful" employment

Why would you ever do that? It's ridiculous easy to make useful public service jobs. It's just a question of how you want to balance things out.

I know tax is higher in Norway. That's somewhat balanced by salaries being much higher too. What successful EU countries do you think pay more tax than us?

Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria.

 

[Amp34]

This would appear to be a bigger problem than the precise amount an unemployed person can claim. There aren't that many solutions though.

1/ make lots of public sector jobs, which don't actually do anything, in order to drive unemployment down. No increase in "useful" employment
2/ hide the unemployed in the NHS (see 1) or universities. No increase in "useful" employment here either
3/ drive the unemployed from our shores and into France. Cutting benefits hard enough would do this.
4/ develop low tech industry in the UK - assembly line/factory type of stuff. That seems the most credible option, but is badly in conflict with minimum wage and H&S legislation

Giving unemployed people much less money and running advertising campaigns about how nice it is in other countries looks the most viable option.



Do we not? There is the 8k ish tax free window at the start. Once you're past that...
20% income tax, 10% national insurance, 10% student loan (not for everyone, just younger people)
At the 35k point, the income tax goes up to 40% but the NI drops to roughly zero. At some point, student loan is repaid. At 100k, the tax free window closes.

After the first 8k, people in the UK are taxed at 40%
Then we lose 1.5k pa to council tax. This is particularly galling as it comes off net, not gross
Then the price of imported things has import tax applied
Then everything we buy has some amount of VAT applied

I know tax is higher in Norway. That's somewhat balanced by salaries being much higher too. What successful EU countries do you think pay more tax than us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day