Radical benefits shake-up

[ZXSpectrum]

While I think its a great idea I can see problems coming from it, mainly crime will skyrocket. If a family has more than 2 kids and intends to have more then the money has to come from somewhere to feed them sunnyd and put kappa tracksuit on their back. They wont "lower" themselves to sweep streets or clean toilets so they will turn to crime.

 

[StriderX]

While I think its a great idea I can see problems coming from it, mainly crime will skyrocket. If a family has more than 2 kids and intends to have more then the money has to come from somewhere to feed them sunnyd and put kappa tracksuit on their back. They wont "lower" themselves to sweep streets or clean toilets so they will turn to crime.

Uh...they already have.

If it is not loan-shark, it is their children turning to mindless pieces of ****.

 

[Darg]

I think it's a fantastic idea and should have been done much sooner. I was extremely lucky to get into a 26k a year job out of uni. I managed to live in London with it perfectly fine, quite luxuriously compared to how I was living as a student. Anyone who complains about only getting that much while sitting on their asses doing nothing good for the country should have their payments stopped entirely and forced to go find work.

If they want more disposable income from that total amount then move to the damn countryside, why do you need to live in central London anyway? I'd never raise a child here, gang problems, poor schooling, it'd be horrible.

 

[Glaucus]

Yes, of course it includes Housing Benefit, and that is the whole point, most of that money the claimant doesn't even see, it goes to pay private landlords...who are the ones raking it in off your tax money.

So what would you suggest is the solution, because if there was an easy one it would be done, rather than this stupid cap which will save the most miniscule amount of money (iirc the data said this cap will affect a few thousand people only) and is purely political to appeal to the likes of you guys rather than address the problem at hand.

Many of us managed to rent in less than 26k a year. Was renting on 16k a year albeit in a 8bed shared house.

Its saving 110m a year

 

[MrMoonX]

It won't work unless they bring in rent controls, it effectively means that people for whatever reason need benefits have to move out of London, this is unacceptable to make people move out of areas they have links to etc.

 

[Bobcat]

Its still capped at well above minimum wage, so nothing but a public opinion policy.
If they're going to do it, have the balls to do it properly.
Still i suppose its a tiny shuffle in the right direction.
Capped at the same as a 26k job is insane, that's a well paid job.

I agree, but hope its a step closer to pulling things into line.

I too think that 26k is way above what i would have capped it as, perhaps if it was in line with minimum wage it would then be more attractive for people to get up off their backsides and work, it is more attractive, but with a 26k cap you still have the old argument of people on the dole saying that they would be worse off working.

"Unemployed parents who then choose to have more than two children ‘will know that welfare is not going to fund that choice" - About bloody time!!

At least this is a start, i personally hope they get harsher and bring the cap down further.

 

[StriderX]

I think it's a fantastic idea and should have been done much sooner. I was extremely lucky to get into a 26k a year job out of uni. I managed to live in London with it perfectly fine, quite luxuriously compared to how I was living as a student. Anyone who complains about only getting that much while sitting on their asses doing nothing good for the country should have their payments stopped entirely and forced to go find work.

If they want more disposable income from that total amount then move to the damn countryside, why do you need to live in central London anyway? I'd never raise a child here, gang problems, poor schooling, it'd be horrible.

The average vacancy to job seekers rate is around 3 per vacancy, so quite how everyone is supposed to just "find" a job is a farce in the first place.

Wages are being cut or frozen as well I might add (on average).

What we need are more jobs, obviously, but considering how lame the market is it at the moment, they should focus on actually reforming the system, not making a pointless tweak.

 

[Freakbro]

Many of us managed to rent in less than 26k a year. Was renting on 16k a year albeit in a 8bed shared house.

And you are/were single, and the cap is £18,200 for single people.

Its saving 110m a year

I know every little helps, but whooppee doo, this is a political not economic policy.

 

[Glaucus]

It won't work unless they bring in rent controls, it effectively means that people for whatever reason need benefits have to move out of London, this is unacceptable to make people move out of areas they have links to etc.

They wont need to move out, the cap is high enough. And i totally disagree anyway, plenty of the working population move about, to get a rent/wage balance or just to get a job in the first place.

 

[alx]

Is this a net £25k?

As above...I'm assuming it is?

 

[Dr Jack]

It seems that things are more complicated than that....

I wouldn't read too much into a single poll from the pollster that consistently gives the lowest Labour leads and the lowest UKIP vote. The overall picture is still of a Labour lead.

 

[aardvark]

fine by me.

 

[cjgardens]

Yes, of course it includes Housing Benefit, and that is the whole point, most of that money the claimant doesn't even see, it goes to pay private landlords...who are the ones raking it in off your tax money.

So what would you suggest is the solution, because if there was an easy one it would be done, rather than this stupid cap which will save the most miniscule amount of money (iirc the data said this cap will affect a few thousand people only) and is purely political to appeal to the likes of you guys rather than address the problem at hand.

Give them less. Even if it does included housing benefit a couple on minimum wage would still have to pay rent so there still in the same boat if not worse off. Unemployed don't have to use there benefits to travel to work, buy clothes for work, wash there clothes, eat at work. I know you still have to eat at home but when at work it can cost more.

If you get ill like me at the moment with a broken leg i still have to pay out.

There's endless benefits to being on benefits, they also get grants for household items like washing machines, cookers and fridges etc, money for decorating repairs.

Less money and food vouchers will help

 

[Colbaker]

Good,

It should be capped, why would you bother trying to work if you get 26k a.year?

also i think child benefit should be part of your working taxes so you only get it if you actually work.

 

[Dr Jack]

Many of us managed to rent in less than 26k a year. Was renting on 16k a year albeit in a 8bed shared house.

The majority of those getting caught by the cap have four or more children.

Its saving 110m a year

No, it's not. The £110m figure ignores the downstream costs of the cap such as increased costs of homelessness, social costs from family breakup and relocation and so on. Eric Pickles's Office warned in a leaked memo that they actually expected the policy to cost money.

 

[Glaucus]

And you are/were single, and the cap is £18,200 for single people.



I know every little helps, but whooppee doo, this is a political not economic policy.

Quick google suggest its 350 a week cap for single which is equivalent to almst 23k a year, no wonder the lack of savings.

 

[Dr Jack]

It should be capped, why would you bother trying to work if you get 26k a.year?

Because someone working minimum wage with 4 or more children (that being the majority of the people affected by the cap) would have an income of around £31,500. And because the poverty threshold for a family of four is more than £26,000 a year.

Successive government have failed to keep housing costs under control. Now the tories have decided to punish the poorest and most vulnerable for that failure.

 

[Glaucus]

The majority of those getting caught by the cap have four or more children.



No, it's not. The £110m figure ignores the downstream costs of the cap such as increased costs of homelessness, social costs from family breakup and relocation and so on. Eric Pickles's Office warned in a leaked memo that they actually expected the policy to cost money.

Got a link, a ut will affect only a few people ~12k isn't it? And the cap is insanely high, then cost more for how long?
Why would cost for homless increase, they aren't scrapping benefits.

 

[Freakbro]

Give them less. Even if it does included housing benefit a couple on minimum wage would still have to pay rent so there still in the same boat if not worse off.

And what you are forgetting as well, is that couple on minimum wage will be getting plenty of benefits too..

In fact all you have to do is work 16hrs/wk for a single person, or combined 24hrs/wk for a couple and there is no cap on benefits.

It also needs to be reiterated every time that the portion of benefits paid to the unemployed is far smaller than the amount paid to working people.

Time to have a living wage, not a minimum wage....why should tax payers money subsidise business profits?

There's endless benefits to being on benefits, they also get grants for household items like washing machines, cookers and fridges etc, money for decorating repairs.

Everybody I know on benefits struggles like hell and doesn't live in the fantasy utopia world of milk and honey as portrayed by the Daily Mail et al.

 

[Hedge]

Freakbro, Strider..

Out of curiosity what is your current employment? Or living situation.

If your working full time and earning 25k yourself then fair play to you for having such an accepting view on things. But I personally earn 25k and find the idea of people pulling in 500 a week for doing nothing massively frustrating.