Poll: Benefit cap vote.

What do you think should happen to benefits

  • The Government Proposal of a 1% increase

    Votes: 146 25.5%

  • Labour proposal of increase in line with inflation

    Votes: 195 34.1%

  • A freeze with no rise at all

    Votes: 231 40.4%
  • Total voters
    572
A benefit rise in line with public sector rises seems perfectly fair to me, likewise if the cost of living for public sector was to be frozen again or increased the shift in benefits / credits should follow.

It understandably sticks in the throat of private sector employees who have seen no pay rise at all (like me, in effect a pay cut) on an annual basis in the last few years but for the system to work economic effects can't be totally ignored.
 
I personally believe that there should be a method of means-testing everyone. The cost of living should be calculated on a regional basis and those that are in most need given what they require, those that are not in need (ie those in receipt of benefits they are entitled to but actually do not need the benefits - such as wealthy OAPs that collect a state pension and winter fuel allowance and other generic payments that they don't need) do not receive the payments.

It would be a huge overhaul of the current system, but it is needed.

robj20 said:
Are you just choosing not to read the link i posted.
Click to expand...

Your link is a load of rubbish.
 
Gilly said:
I personally believe that there should be a method of means-testing everyone. The cost of living should be calculated on a regional basis and those that are in most need given what they require, those that are not in need (ie those in receipt of benefits they are entitled to but actually do not need the benefits - such as wealthy OAPs that collect a state pension and winter fuel allowance and other generic payments that they don't need) do not receive the payments.

It would be a huge overhaul of the current system, but it is needed.
Click to expand...


Now that i agree with, i just hate that they can afford luxury items. You should just get enough to get by.


Gilly said:
Your link is a load of rubbish.
Click to expand...

Of course it is, anyway its only my opinion, calm down.
 
Last edited:
Gilly said:
Isn't it time to raise the payments from companies rather than hitting those in most need? Vodafone's Chief Exec. took a wage of £14m home last year, up from £6.6m the year before :/
Click to expand...

I agree completely on this, our tax laws are ridiculously lax for the wealthy/large companies.

Another one that boggles the mind is the EBRD, somehow they have a series of loopholes that mean no employees pay income tax or national insurance, and just a small bank tax instead.
 
The government has done a great job in demonising anyone on benefits as workshy scum, glossing over the fact that a hell of a lot of people actually on benefits work for such a pittance their wages are 'topped up' with benefits just to live.
When you are on a benefit such as income support, you get a letter telling you how much the government says you need to live on a week (its probably less than they bill the taxpayer for lunch) so a below inflation rise means the government thinks everyone should be getting less now, well everybody except them.
 
The whole thing needs pulling apart and starting again, instead of just playing around with parts of it.

The very sick and disabled are tarred with the same brush as the "won't work".

It would also help if some employers would pay a livable wage instead of hiding behind the minimum and relying on the state to pick up the rest.

A ran a back to work scheme in Worthing a few years back. It was to help people find work that had been made redundant by a fridge manufacturer who moved abroad. The people working there got a reasonable wage. As a contractor we were expected to train them to become admin workers. Many of them had never seen a computer before and would never be word processors, Spreadsheet or database experts.

Many of the guys had families, they would need £25-30k plus just to support their families without all the state aid they were receiving. The problem is they were factory workers, no disrespect to them but with the education and training they had they kind of salary just wouldn't be obtainable. So in comes the benefit trap, the only jobs they are qualified for pay 14-16k. Even an admin worker wouldn't earn much more. Not enough for their rent and basic family living expenses.

We were given 8 weeks to re-train and find them work. The scheme was scrapped after just 5 weeks yet we were paid for 8.

The people in charge of the jobless and benefits are completely clueless.
 
robj20 said:
Now that i agree with, i just hate that they can afford luxury items. You should just get enough to get by.
Click to expand...
Have you ever been on benefits?

£70 a week is what they get, pretty sure that's not enough for luxuries after the essentials, if some people choose to buy luxuries instead of essentials that doesn't mean that they are getting too much money.
 
robj20 said:
Can you prove they cant?
I have just given you an example.

I just don't see why people on benefits should be able to have things like Sky TV and cars even go on holidays.
Click to expand...

Which people are these exactly?

Certainly not single people living on their own. Based on my area with essentials etc

JSA £69 a week
HB £71 a week

First off half my JSA payment went towards rent. £71 doesn't get you very far considering most flats are £100+ a week around here and that's a shoebox held together by mold/damp.

Then you have gas/water/electric to pay. These don't stop just because the work ran out. Also due to being out of work these bills will increase, but then you have to lower payments to survive. So getting into debt already...

Food to purchase - I struggled living off £20 a week food. When working I spend £60 on average, going up to £100 with eating out etc that's a massive drop in food intake.

Phone - gotta have a phone. So that'll will need topping up once a month.

Then you got all the associated bills that come with life. Credit card, life insurance, contents insurance, medical/dental etc etc (most of which got cancelled)

Oh and car..though I don't drive, but others will. Why shouldn't people on benefits have a car? Having a car means the difference in being able to apply for jobs that you otherwise couldn't.

You see where this is going..? Or are you still blinded by the **** you read in the paper?
 
simulatorman said:
I’m happy with a freeze. Prove that you have to get an increase or just shut up and tighten your belt just like the rest of the country. It’s about time “some” of these people faced the realities of the real world.
Click to expand...
Says the guy who buys tablet pcs and gadgets every other day, you'd get a shock if you ever lost your job, and don't bother replying with some smug comment, you never know whats round the corner.
 
Third Opinion said:
The whole thing needs pulling apart and starting again, instead of just playing around with parts of it.

The very sick and disabled are tarred with the same brush as the "won't work".

It would also help if some employers would pay a livable wage instead of hiding behind the minimum and relying on the state to pick up the rest.

A ran a back to work scheme in Worthing a few years back. It was to help people find work that had been made redundant by a fridge manufacturer who moved abroad. The people working there got a reasonable wage. As a contractor we were expected to train them to become admin workers. Many of them had never seen a computer before and would never be word processors, Spreadsheet or database experts.

Many of the guys had families, they would need £25-30k plus just to support their families without all the state aid they were receiving. The problem is they were factory workers, no disrespect to them but with the education and training they had they kind of salary just wouldn't be obtainable. So in comes the benefit trap, the only jobs they are qualified for pay 14-16k. Even an admin worker wouldn't earn much more. Not enough for their rent and basic family living expenses.

We were given 8 weeks to re-train and find them work. The scheme was scrapped after just 5 weeks yet we were paid for 8.

The people in charge of the jobless and benefits are completely clueless.
Click to expand...

I've seen a negative income tax system proposed on here in the past, it seems that it should be able to solve the problems you've highlighted if configured correctly.
 
Eeeeeethan said:
Have you ever been on benefits?

£70 a week is what they get, pretty sure that's not enough for luxuries after the essentials, if some people choose to buy luxuries instead of essentials that doesn't mean that they are getting too much money.
Click to expand...

Yes, only job seekers for about 7 months though.
£70 is the basic rate though, what about the 7 kids they claim for.

Im not saying everyone is the lazy scum but there are a lot of them.
 
Spook187 said:
oh god here we again, people on poor wages work hard not just the rich.
Click to expand...

That's the thing! If you increase their benefits then people will get lazier. I don't have anything wrong with people who work and are on benefits but if you give the lazy sods who don't do anything more money, they are less likely to get up and do something about it
 
Eeeeeethan said:
Have you ever been on benefits?

£70 a week is what they get, pretty sure that's not enough for luxuries after the essentials, if some people choose to buy luxuries instead of essentials that doesn't mean that they are getting too much money.
Click to expand...

The ones who can afford the luxuries are the baby factory families. They use to receive a £500 lump sum every time another dropped out. I have met families that receive 40-50k on benefits with not a soul working.

This is to be reduced to a max of 25k. I think this is fair but their will always be the argument that the kids may suffer through no fault of their own.
 
Should be frozen, if not the next best thing is a cap. I've never had a near or above inflation pay rise in 6 years, so why should people not working be afforded that luxury? I've stopped spending as much on unnecessary items as a consequence, and so should they not have to do that too?, sense of "entitlement", it stinks in this country, everyone thinks they're entitled to anything they want with minimal effort. Yes I know there are people who "can't" work, blah, blah, people who won't work, people who've only just lost their job,, then there's the 3rd generation oxygen thieves who should just be culled, but there's not much can be done, no cuts doesn't punish anyone, so obviously cuts will punish some more than others, but that's something I'm willing to accept because I don't think getting rises above inflation for benefits is the correct thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom