Radical benefits shake-up

[Hyburnate]

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.....

I don't think he was taught how to use a condom...

 

[CREATIVE!11]

capping child benefit is reasonable.

losing housing benefit if you are under 25 is just absurd. They are getting more retarded by the day. Universal credit is a joke as well so is WP, all failing miserably.

I had to leave home under 25, I claimed HB for a while whilst I found a job because I left the area entirely (Crapphole with zilch jobs).

 

[arknor]

I don't think he was taught how to use a condom...

the council couldn't find a house big enough for them so they had to buy 2 houses and knock them through together.
No shame either the father was telling us how they went to charities to get money for carpets etc and how many thousands they got

I almost couldn't stop my self from punching the guy out cold no shame or anything

losing housing benefit if you are under 25 is just absurd

They weren't getting full housing benefit anyway? only he price of a single room in shared accommodation I though?

TBH with the housing shortage under 25's should stay at home or find a house share if they can't afford to pay the rent themselves theres just to much competition and waiting lists are huge.

I hope the undewr 25 thing counts for pregnant woman and single mothers to

 

[Deleted member 77746]

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

Most people I know under 25 have had kids to get a house while on benefits. It's the easy way out for them.

 

[arknor]

Most people I know under 25 have had kids to get a house while on benefits. It's the easy way out for them.

waiting lists are huge.

I have mental health issues so got stuck at the top of the list instantly for four different locations with a housing association.

when I had a letter again about 6 months later giving me an update I had slipped to 3rd-5th on the waiting list and probably would have slowly slipped further.
that was having just about max points as well
luckily a list I wanted on had been closed by mistake and only the 3 bedrooms should have been closed so I got instantly to the top of the list again and because of someones **** up they had a flat available I was offered.
I could have gone private I guess but wanted to be with a housing association I know runs there properties really well and not end up somewhere with a crap landlord that ignores mould issues etc

I think only one of my neighbours doesn't have kids

 

[CREATIVE!11]

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.

yep.

 

[arknor]

Let's turn this country into next rio de janeiro. we'll have favelas being erected in London eventually then people can complain about drug wars and gangs because without benefits it'd probably be a HELL of a lot worse than it is now.
.

erm I think we are along way from

 

[Freakbro]

I've been saying cap it at 2 children for ages now...

The problem is, what do you do with the extra children that will be born and the families can't afford to have?

As said before, crime, social problems and other negative effects will happen...all of which cost far more money to solve.

A child abandoned, starved, mistreated will all cost far more to sort out than the bit of money it costs now to keep the problem families quiet.

at my sons schools theres atleast one family who does not work at all with 9 children...

And there again, you pull out such an outlier that is totally non-representative of the issue generally and use it as the standard we have to tackle.

How much will it cost then to take 7 of those children into care once you stop all benefits enabling them to stay as one family unit.

I know it is far far from ideal, but your solutions would cost more and make the situation worse, all in the name of 'fairness'

 

[arknor]

I doubt the 2 child benefit cap will be brought in retrospectively so let's not try that one.

this will discourage people from having kid's if they can not afford them it is a good thing.

 

[platypus]

I think you'll be taken aback and surprised on how popular these benefits cuts will be.

There was some poor diddum complaining that they're getting cut down to £500 per week! About ****ing time!

I hope so, and I hope they actually stick with them/

Capping child benefit at two children seems reasonable to me.

Yep.

Cash benefits should also end.

This is the biggest change thats needed in my opinion.

 

[arknor]

removing cash benefits will just create a black market and it would cost loads to implement anyway probably much more than it will save and the company awarded the contract to print/distribute the vouchers.tokens/top up cards would likely end up like another ATOS ran by someone who scratched a bunch of MP's backs and raking in an obscene amount of money

 

[platypus]

These cuts are NOTHING more than scapegoating the poor for **** poor management of funds by these cretins and then spinning it as if they are doing amazing.

Have you seen the size of the annual benefit spend? Poor management of funds aside. Seriously.

Let's turn this country into next rio de janeiro. we'll have favelas being erected in London eventually then people can complain about drug wars and gangs because without benefits it'd probably be a HELL of a lot worse than it is now.

I see. Or rather, no I don't.

[/quote] sorting out ridiculous housing costs? None of them are easy but they would make biggest differences, reason they like to throw around benefit cuts is because it makes it look like they are actually doing something which overall will not have a massive effect.[/QUOTE]You do realise they can't afford to do anything about housing?

 

[arknor]

yea didn't the government say something like only 0.27% of people are benefits cheats on DLA yet they are attempting to cut much more than that
EDIT:

Why has the DLA bill grown so dramatically? Neil Coyle, director of policy and campaigns with Disability Rights UK, says the biggest area of growth is down to the ageing population – people who have been granted DLA earlier in life can continue to claim when they pass pension age. Since this is a relatively new benefit, launched in 1992, the number of older people claiming it has ballooned, he says. There has also been a growth in younger claimants. "We have more disabled children surviving, which is a positive thing," he adds.

"What is disturbing is the suggestion that this is down to fraud and abuse. The DWP's own estimates put fraud at 0.5%. There isn't a 30% of abuse of DLA," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/14/disability-living-allowance-reform-analysis

 

[danielanthony]

This is £500pw AFTER tax, meaning a £31,000pa job.

Average full time wage in the UK is £24,000.

 

[realBabelfish]

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.

yup. the majority of the cash goes to rip-off landlords. benefits should be split into housing and then benefits like dole etc.

we need to limit these rip-off landlords. IIRC germany has gov regulated rent to avoid this issue. the problem is most MPs are landlords, so again, they would be voting against their vested interests.

i think the majority of families outside of the south east dont get close to the max limit anyway.

i do agree though that people unemployed shouldnt have a better standard of living than working people. but maybe if made unemployed you should get better benefits for the first 6-12 months. that is different to the people who have never worked and just claimed benefits.

we also need to stop these teenage kids having kids just to live on benefits. but of course we need more jobs to do this. there isnt close to enough jobs for everyone unemployed.

we need to raise the average wage to encourage people to work. living on min wage with a family must be almost impossible. i earn well over the national average and we have nothing left at the end of the month. the mrs has even taken on an avon round to help.

 

[elmarko]

Capping child benefit makes no economical sense, it's pure ideology being pushed into policy (if it was done).

Firstly, it's collective punishment - further pushing children into poverty for the poor life-style choices of their parents.

Secondly, the social cost in policing, healthcare, prison & reduced social cohesion will negate any economic benefit garnered from this short-term, short-sighted kind of idea.

So you have two strong negatives & no real benefit, apart from appeasing the schadenfreude of the Daily Mail reading idiotic public.

Capping benefits, well - each benefit should be examined & given based on need if people genuinely don't need the money then by all means take it away from them - but removing money which the state decides they need based on some arbitrary limit is frankly absurd, it will also create a huge stream of negative externalities which the tax payer will have the pick up the price for.

Finally, why exactly should the poor/disabled or unemployed should pay for the global finical crisis? (the people least responsible) or why those least able to shoulder the burden should be expected to suffer to undo the mess we are in today?.

It's a distraction, nothing more "look over here Joe public!, these people you despise - we are punishing them to appease your stupidity & anger" - well done for falling for it.

It's far better to raise taxes on those who are able to shoulder the burden (like myself) than punish those already struggling - I don't mind a tax rise simply because I can afford to pay more tax (as a result of having a much larger disposable income than most of the population).

 

[robgmun]

The problem is, what do you do with the extra children that will be born and the families can't afford to have?

As said before, crime, social problems and other negative effects will happen...all of which cost far more money to solve.

A child abandoned, starved, mistreated will all cost far more to sort out than the bit of money it costs now to keep the problem families quiet.

Whats the answer? They've effectively blackmailed you into given them money otherwise the poor little ankle biters will riot. There has to be a point when we cannot negotiate with the bloody minded who see the government benefits system as a cash cow. It' might take a generation to fix and there will be a lot of pain but the next lot will grow up knowing that they cannot take the benefits system for a free ride. And realise that the way to get on in life is study and work hard.

 

[cjgardens]

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?



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.

Ye people who work do get benefits as well I get £50 a week but pay shed loads more in tax than that

And why shouldn't people who work get this?

So your friends on benefits never have a beer, smoke fags or eat any luxurys or buy any nice clothes? Because the ones I know do and some even have cars

 

[realBabelfish]

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

but thats 25k isnt for single people. its for families. as a single person you would be able to claim much less than 25k.

and you guys seem to forget that these are families, not single people. child care is often more expensive than min wage so its not worth a wife working just to give it all and more to childcare.

we need to reduce child care costs (much cheaper in scandinavia). my wife is a stay at home mum who works from home 1 day a week and does avon round in the evenings. if she went to work full time it would cost us money, thats just insane!

 

[elmarko]

Whats the answer? They've effectively blackmailed you into given them money otherwise the poor little ankle biters will riot. There has to be a point when we cannot negotiate with the bloody minded who see the government benefits system as a cash cow. It' might take a generation to fix and there will be a lot of pain but the next lot will grow up knowing that they cannot take the benefits system for a free ride. And realise that the way to get on in life is study and work hard.

It's not like we have to decide between slashing benefits (which costs us more in the long-term) or simply giving up & letting those who are taking advantage continue to do so.

Most benefits don't go-to long term scroungers, tax credits for people for those in work & pensions are the biggest burdens on our welfare bill.

Look at that chart & tell me that JSA is where we need to focus on to make a real difference to our public spending?.

Or, gosh - looking at that it's actually pensioners which cost the most (not that I advocate cutting that either) - but the reason this group is not targeted is simply because they are very politically active.

This isn't about economics, this isn't about debt - it's about the government wanting to get voted in again & not caring about the economic consequences of those policies (which would most likely not be felt during their tenure in office).