Government Benifit Cap

[realBabelfish]

I prefer my tax pounds went on the funeral of Lady Thatcher then some oxygen thief sponging off the state.

surely, a woman that hated socialism and loved free enterprise and the private sector shouldnt be expecting the state to pay? shouldnt we have put it out to the lowest bidder?

sure, benefits abusers need looking at but taking money from people who cannot afford it to spend on a millionaires funeral is inherently wrong.

 

[realBabelfish]

Yes, of course it would, why wouldn't it?


Only for things they greedly want, which they should rightly be thrown in jail for anyway.



I was jobless for 2 months, started a new role this week. So i didn't lay about and sponge off the state like some do. I wouldn't complain about vouchers because that's what i was spending my money on anyway. In fact i joined the work force this week with 500 in the bank, which goes to show it was getting more then i needed!



The only thing that would happen is Labour supporters arranging pointless marches

Just LOL!

can you explain to me how vouchers will help pay for bills, transport to job centre, transport to interviews etc.

im not saying its purely bad idea but you end up with people who need cash trading food vouchers for cash.

when we talk of throwing the greedy in jail. is it right that thieving MPs can just say 'oops' and give stolen money back? they arent setting a good example are they?

when you were jobless i take it you live alone and pay all the bills etc, didnt have any savings etc. as that £500 left is only about what in benefits (bar rent) anyway. sounds to me like you had savings or you share and let your other half pick up the tab. thats what it sounds like anyway. apologies if wrong. i know when i was unemployed (15 years ago) i was having to part fund my rent and only had £50 a week to live in (bills, food, clothing etc) so it seems odd you had 5 weeks dole left.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Earlier in thread I was probably seen as kicking up a fuss over these caps but tbh I'm for them really in a sense.

I think 350P/w is massively OTT, I just dislike all benefits discriminations...like workfare and crapp like that.

I was on JSA / rent benefit for while I basically got 61.50 for rent, 56 for JSA that's amount I was living on. That is really a small amount and you can't do anything literally nor afford to heat your house, I woke up cold so many nights. Then you see threads how people on benefits live lavish lifestyle and all this so excuse me if I feel bitter and extremely ****ed off that my clothes were falling apart and I didn't even get haircuts unless I had job interview.

 

[randomshenans]

Having not read any of this, but don't have the devoted time right now, but wanted to put something in here.

I've seen a couple of things on the TV, news etc and I have to say, I'm all for these caps. My frustration lies with the system as a whole. People have this attitude that they're hard done by, and that they should have everything that they want in this world, or entitled to have.
This cap will annoy a lot of people, that quite frankly have it far too easily. I bet all of them have every electronic device in the house etc etc.

The people in the working world know that unless they're on 35k a year, on the previous rule, that they could be better off not working. This is just an insane figure. Above the average salary!

The MP that I saw made a very valid point to John Snow when Snow commented that, with these caps, this particular woman would be 126quid worse off a week and that she might have to move areas to a cheaper area etc.
The MP said that she will have to make the same life decisions as that of a working family, who have to decide on their living area, and lifestyle based on their income. Why should it be any different?

Also, if you want more people to get out to work, what they should do is publicise the figures about what people will still get when they're working. They won't lose all their benefits at a 15k a year job, but they certainly have a chance of earning more. I'd like to see more to show case studies of people; benefits before cap, working on low paid job & what pay with benefits, and the same for afterwards.

Makes so much more sense.

 

[dowie]

he earned about £500-£600 a day and was rolling in it. he just liked doing his job 2 days a week (subcontracting). he was about 60+ though and had been 'collecting' houses for most of his life. he was also a really bright and clued up bloke.

OK that's a bit different as it wasn't clear that it was part time...

plenty of people work when they dont need to. bill gates was still working when he was a billionaire as are many top businessmen.

that's also rather different - his personal wealth is/was that company of course he's going to dedicate time to running it - what I was questioning was why someone with substantial assets (100 houses) would dedicate (seemingly) their time towards some other paid employment.

which has been cleared up now as its only part time employment, they enjoy it and are reasonably well compensated for it.

 

[dowie]

The MP that I saw made a very valid point to John Snow when Snow commented that, with these caps, this particular woman would be 126quid worse off a week and that she might have to move areas to a cheaper area etc.
The MP said that she will have to make the same life decisions as that of a working family, who have to decide on their living area, and lifestyle based on their income. Why should it be any different?

This has been my view thought this thread... the idea that its devastating that someone might have to move a few miles - in reality its just completely farcical that they haven't until now and could keep claiming for some ridiculous rent in some prime central London area.

Anyone not claiming benefits has an inherent cap on their accommodation anyway in the size of their salary. Given that JSA is rather small and the cap doesn't affect disabled people then the single people affected by this £350 a week cap are likely living in accommodation significantly more expensive than a lot of single wages earners ineligible for benefits could afford.

 

[Neil79]

Doesn't seem like anyone has mentioned this????

Yes you may have to find somewhere CHEAPER but it isn't that easy, you still have to pay

Deposit, sometimes upto £450 or more
Ref Fee's £100+ ?
First Months Rent Up front £300+

So if you don't have much money in the bank, you're pretty screwed

 

[albert]

Why are they entitled to benefits anyway? I want some of this free money. But unfortunately it seems the £600/month i pay in tax seems to go to everyone else.

 

[elmarko]

Why are they entitled to benefits anyway? I want some of this free money. But unfortunately it seems the £600/month i pay in tax seems to go to everyone else.

Yes, because you get nothing in return for the tax you pay.

No services, no infrastructure maintenance, no military defence, no NHS access, no education, no police-force, no prisons, no social programs to reduce crime/increase social cohesion.

Nothing at all.

 

[LordSplodge]

Why are they entitled to benefits anyway? I want some of this free money. But unfortunately it seems the £600/month i pay in tax seems to go to everyone else.

It would seem paying all that tax hasn't given you a brain to use! See below.

Yes, because you get nothing in return for the tax you pay.

No services, no infrastructure maintenance, no military defence, no NHS access, no education, no police-force, no prisons, no social programs to reduce crime/increase social cohesion.

Nothing at all.

Exactly...

 

[Hagar]

Doesn't seem like anyone has mentioned this????

Yes you may have to find somewhere CHEAPER but it isn't that easy, you still have to pay

Deposit, sometimes upto £450 or more
Ref Fee's £100+ ?
First Months Rent Up front £300+

So if you don't have much money in the bank, you're pretty screwed

The state will pay for relocation.

Yes, because you get nothing in return for the tax you pay.

No services, no infrastructure maintenance, no military defence, no NHS access, no education, no police-force, no prisons, no social programs to reduce crime/increase social cohesion.

Nothing at all.

Yes we do get all that and obviously subsidise others that cannot pay for these services.

 

[zipp0r]

The state will pay for relocation.

proof of this?

 

[Number_25]

There seems to be this common misconception that everyone on benefits has a 'can't work, won't work attitude'.

My mother was forced to claim benefits after a work-related accident which left her unable to move from one day to another and also badly affected her mental state. My father was earning a fair bit, but debts and issues from previous marriages forced most of his earnings to go toward paying them off.

She was turned down for work during her recovery and if it wasn't for the welfare state helping us, I probably wouldn't be where I am today.

My older brother suffers from bi-polar syndrome, he is unable to work because of his altering mental state. If it wasn't for the welfare state he'll be unable to put food on the table for his 5 kids - you have to think about those too.

Food vouchers aren't the answer, neither is slashing benefits for those who need it most.

Ultimately Cameron and Osbourne have failed to create jobs, austerity isn't helping as people are holding their money back because of it. Public sector jobs need to take the weight as we try to get out this economic downturn.

 

[Hagar]

Apply for a Discretionary Housing Payment from your local authority. This may help in the short term to pay your rent, or pay for a deposit or removal expenses to help you move to cheaper accommodation

The Coalition Government has announced that it will triple its contribution to local authorities’ funding for Discretionary Housing Payments. This is currently £20 million a year, and will increase to £30 million in 2011/12 and then to £60 million a year from 2012/13. In discussion with local authorities, we intend to target these resources to give extra support to areas where the impacts are greatest. It will give authorities more flexibility to provide additional support where it is most needed. For example, this could provide either a transitional safety net for customers who need to find alternative accommodation or longer term support for customers who are less able to move.

 

[Number_25]

Rant part two.

Before I left for University in January I had to visit a elderly ladies home to drop off some stuff which my mother was holding back for her.

Upon enterance of her house I realised how cold it was and the fact that she had 3 jumpers on, she said that she couldn't afford to heat her house up and it was starting to cause her agony in her knees - making her unable to walk or sit up properly.

Her husband worked and paid taxes for 50 years of his life before passing, and this is how the government repays his efforts? Leaving his beloved freeze in a cold, water damaged house when large gas firms earn billions in profits year in year out?

But you must remember, "we're all in this together".

 

[Number_25]

ALL IN THIS TOGETHER

 

[randomshenans]

There seems to be this common misconception that everyone on benefits has a 'can't work, won't work attitude'.

My mother was forced to claim benefits after a work-related accident which left her unable to move from one day to another and also badly affected her mental state. My father was earning a fair bit, but debts and issues from previous marriages forced most of his earnings to go toward paying them off.

She was turned down for work during her recovery and if it wasn't for the welfare state helping us, I probably wouldn't be where I am today.

My older brother suffers from bi-polar syndrome, he is unable to work because of his altering mental state. If it wasn't for the welfare state he'll be unable to put food on the table for his 5 kids - you have to think about those too.

Food vouchers aren't the answer, neither is slashing benefits for those who need it most.

Ultimately Cameron and Osbourne have failed to create jobs, austerity isn't helping as people are holding their money back because of it. Public sector jobs need to take the weight as we try to get out this economic downturn.

Relating to your mother, if it was a work related accident that has had this amount of impact on her current and future employment, that would have been a case for a hefty insurance claim, surely?

In the case of your brother, there are exceptions, but there isn't enough clear definition at the moment around this.

I was out of work for 6 months when I was made redundant, but previously on a decent ~30k wage. I couldn't pay rent, food, phone bills, anything. Couldn't claim JSA as I hadn't been out of work long enough. The help I received was zero. I mounted up a few grands worth of debt before I got a job and got sorted, and then who paid off my debt? I did. I got myself out of it all, with no help from the system that I had been contributing to, at all. What sort of a system is that?

 

[robgmun]

There's always going to be individual cases, even in a perfect socialist enviroment. It's what's best for everyone not just a few people on the fringes

 

[Number_25]

Relating to your mother, if it was a work related accident that has had this amount of impact on her current and future employment, that would have been a case for a hefty insurance claim, surely?

In the case of your brother, there are exceptions, but there isn't enough clear definition at the moment around this.

I was out of work for 6 months when I was made redundant, but previously on a decent ~30k wage. I couldn't pay rent, food, phone bills, anything. Couldn't claim JSA as I hadn't been out of work long enough. The help I received was zero. I mounted up a few grands worth of debt before I got a job and got sorted, and then who paid off my debt? I did. I got myself out of it all, with no help from the system that I had been contributing to, at all. What sort of a system is that?

My parents are quite apposed to 'claim' culture, the accident was mainly her fault.

 

[Number_25]

There's always going to be individual cases, even in a perfect socialist enviroment. It's what's best for everyone not just a few people on the fringes

The argument of left vs right died once the Berlin Wall collapsed, it's more the battle between right and wrong as far as I'm concerned.

I believe in a 'greater good' society where everyone supports one another.

If you don't, you end up with Detroit.