People not on benefits have to choose where they live based on what they can afford, why should the state subsides housing costs just so people can live where they want?
Radical benefits shake-up
- Thread starter gothic_hobbit
- Start date
People not on benefits have to choose where they live based on what they can afford, why should the state subsides housing costs just so people can live where they want?
Not to sound harsh, but if you can't afford to have a child then don't. There has never been a guarantee that the state will always pay for them, it was foolish of the parents to think they can get away with it and now they're paying the price.
no one knows what the downstream costs will be, I agree though, just to be on the safe side more money should be saved by dropping the cap to minimum wage levels.
A little disingenuous to gross up the single persons and not the couples
If it is quoted as £26k for couples then the figure is £18.2k for singles. Like for like please.
Its 40,000 I think, half of which will be in london...disputing your earlier statement that it won't affect people in london.
Last edited:
There has to be exceptions, my partner was kicked out of her house at 16 for reporting her father as being abusive - social services did nothing - he found out and kicked her onto the street.
I hope it does affect people in London! I hope it makes them realise it would be cheaper and nicer to live in the country or atleast a smaller town. As I already said central London is not a place you should be raising your child.
How about if you're among the majority of people claiming benefits who either had work when they had the children or were in a relationship with someone who did?
Very few people claim benefits continuously for long periods. Most claim them because their circumstances have changed.
Not just frustrating its unsustainable, the country cant run at a negative for ever(not unless you can maintain substantial growth year in year out, now i believe we can grow and haven't reached a limit like some think, but i doubt it will be substantial. Either taxes have to be raised massively or we have to have cuts.
As to rent without a cap you are pushing up private landlord rent, with a cap landlords will have to cut or find private renters
As to rent without a cap you are pushing up private landlord rent, with a cap landlords will have to cut or find private renters
Whereas for those of us who have been forced to move out of areas we have links to etc. to find work it's perfectly ok?
I'm self employed, own my own home, and earn varying amounts from year to year. I have earnt far more than 25k and also far less at times.
I'm not arguing the system isn't borked, but that is just down to the combination of high cost of living and low standard of average wages.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but just taking it out on the 'unemployed' as a whole isn't the answer - and again the vast majority of them are looking for work, it is only a small minority who are abusing the system, and that minority have been there since the benefit system was introduced.
As Mr Jack just mentioned, if you look at the data for long term unemployed (over 1 year) compared to the total it's not that high at all. The vast majority of unemployed enter and leave employment all the time.
Last edited:
A little disingenuous to gross up the single persons and not the couples
If it is quoted as £26 for couples then the figure is £18.2k for singles. Like for like please.
Its 40,000 I think, half of which will be in london...disputing your earlier statement that it won't affect people in london.
Its because i thought they were grossed up until you said 18k, and yes it is unfair the gross shows how stupid these caps are and how more stupid the situation has got in the first place. No point comparing anything but gross.
Whereas for those of us who have been forced to move out of areas we have links to etc. to find work it's perfectly ok?
It's so frustrating to see people think they're entitled to their perfect life of everything paid for them and not having to give up anything in the process.
They're effectively being paid £26k or whatever they're on to move to the country, I would jump on that in a second if I didn't have an interest in actually doing something useful with my life.
Why do people seem to assume people on benefits are unemployed? From memory isn't the figure about 12% of benefit claimants are jobless?
I see the demonisation of the unemployed much the same as the demonisation of bankers - based on little fact, and a lot of noise and Daily Fail conjecture.
Just for clarity though, that's not to say I believe it should be easy to be a long term unemployed benefit claimant.
I suppose in some respects I'd rather have to put up paying for a few ass-hats to ensure that the people who really do need the help get it, then tighten up the rules so much that people who are up against it don't get the help that they need.
I see the demonisation of the unemployed much the same as the demonisation of bankers - based on little fact, and a lot of noise and Daily Fail conjecture.
Just for clarity though, that's not to say I believe it should be easy to be a long term unemployed benefit claimant.
I suppose in some respects I'd rather have to put up paying for a few ass-hats to ensure that the people who really do need the help get it, then tighten up the rules so much that people who are up against it don't get the help that they need.
The problem is that if London becomes unaffordable for poor people, who will do all of the minimum wage jobs in central London? People are going to be better off unemployed than spending half of their wages on train fares.
This is a policy that will prove to be popular though. People have a very warped understanding of the benefits system and its exactly these people who this policy will appeal to.
This policy will lead to more child poverty, more crime, higher social services costs... all in the name of being 'fair'. It's destructive but certainly a vote winner.
This is a policy that will prove to be popular though. People have a very warped understanding of the benefits system and its exactly these people who this policy will appeal to.
This policy will lead to more child poverty, more crime, higher social services costs... all in the name of being 'fair'. It's destructive but certainly a vote winner.
I agree, but it's politics again isn't it....the policy wouldn't be as popular if the Tories admitted the cap for couples is ....wait for it...
£34,500 Gross
Just to wind you all up a bit more
Indeed. If I were in that position, I'd move out of the city in an instant. Fortunately/unfortunately, I have bigger plans, plus I want to make sure I instil a decent work ethic in my son.
Doesn't go against what i said at all, i do expect it to affect people everywhere including London, i don't think people in London will have to move out of London, the cap is high enough to afford rent, either finding somewhere cheaper or landlords reducing rent due to the now cap
Seeing as you are so against landlords milking it, why do you not want a cap. Cap means people cant afford it, thus landlords will have to reduce rent or find enough people in employment to fill these now vacant properties.
I've been saying cap it at 2 children for ages now...
at my sons schools theres atleast one family who does not work at all with 9 children...
the mother has been constantly pregnant since my child went to that school.
even a miscarriage didn;t slow them down they just breezed on past that block and she was pregnant again like it never happened.....
at my sons schools theres atleast one family who does not work at all with 9 children...
the mother has been constantly pregnant since my child went to that school.
even a miscarriage didn;t slow them down they just breezed on past that block and she was pregnant again like it never happened.....
And people need to learn that they can't hold the government to ransom using there own children.
I'm willing to bet that a vast majority of these massive families have children to get more money and not due to the children themselves