benefits cap

[adlplumbing]

hi all just wonder what you all think on this
i think its good idea but think £500 is bit high
as people should on benfits should not be better off than some one on minmum wage

 

[Alarm]

Not sure where the limit came in from.
If you have paid tax and NI for your working life and get a hard time, then surely you should get back what you have paid?
Or have I missed something?

Having done a quick search, how the fook are you supposed to live on the pittance they give?

And they want to reduce it?
Blimey.

So where are they diverting the tax and NI then?

 

[cajar]

So where are they diverting the tax and NI then?

Into paying off the huge defecit maybe?

how the fook are you supposed to live on the pittance they give?

Surely that is the problem - people ARE living on it, and quite comfortably too. Sometimes even living in better areas than those who work for a living, costing the tax payer more than a person on minimum wage pays for his/her accomodation.

I'm obviously in favour of a cap, too many handouts going to people who dont deserve squat as they havent worked for it.

 

[cumbriahandyman]

So where are they diverting the tax and NI then?

Into paying off the huge defecit maybe?

how the fook are you supposed to live on the pittance they give?

Surely that is the problem - people ARE living on it, and quite comfortably too. Sometimes even living in better areas than those who work for a living, costing the tax payer more than a person on minimum wage pays for his/her accomodation.

I'm obviously in favour of a cap, too many handouts going to people who dont deserve squat as they havent worked for it.

 

[seco services]

Having done a quick search, how the fook are you supposed to live on the pittance they give?

pittance my ar*e.

poll tax paid
under 5 yr old cars
holidays abroard
fags/booze

and thats pittance.

 

[cumbriahandyman]

Having done a quick search, how the fook are you supposed to live on the pittance they give?

pittance my ar*e.

poll tax paid
under 5 yr old cars
holidays abroard
fags/booze

and thats pittance.

 

[cajar]

Do you need some help with your contribution?

 

[big-all]

Surely that is the problem - people ARE living on it, and quite comfortably too.

a single person gets £65 a week to pay for gas electric phone water food clothing and have a riotus time oo and pay for any household item like tvs washing machines ect
would you describe that as a comfortable living???

 

[EngStudent]

A letter from the office of Communities Secretary Eric Pickles in January said this meant the proposed £500-a-week cap could cost more than it saved.

£500/week? One has to wonder why people are up in arms about these proposed limits. How many people can say they earn £500/week, AFTER tax?

It is estimated the cap, which would apply to the combined income from benefits such as jobseekers allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit, could result in about 50,000 families being about £93 a week worse off.

So the main reduction will probably be in housing benefit. Given that you can rent a decent house for £500/month in a LOT of areas (not all, I admit), where does the other £375 go? Subtract another £30/week for council tax (afterall, if you're claiming such a large amount of benefits you shouldn't expect to be in a high band). So, £345/week.

If an average family can't feed, clothe, wash & heat themselves for that, there's something wrong.

Source for quotes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14004551

 

[Deleted member 105431]

It should be capped to the minimum wage (x30 hours) and limited to 6 months after which enforced labour or the money stops.


You only have to look at mickymoody and libby lou lou from this site as proof we are too soft and generous!

Those on disability with indesputable severe conditions/illness (amputees, genetic disorders, mulitiple sclerosis/wheelchair bound etc) should be looked after and those malingerers who fake bad backs/depression/etc etc should be weeded out and forced into work.

 

[big-all]

£500/week? One has to wonder why people are up in arms about these proposed limits. How many people can say they earn £500/week, AFTER tax?


So the main reduction will probably be in housing benefit. Given that you can rent a decent house for £500/month in a LOT of areas (not all, I admit), where does the other £375 go? Subtract another £30/week for council tax (afterall, if you're claiming such a large amount of benefits you shouldn't expect to be in a high band). So, £345/week.

If an average family can't feed, clothe, wash & heat themselves for that, there's something wrong.

Source for quotes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14004551

housing costs should be removed from the equasion as progressive governments have sold off council houses at knock down prices without building new housing
with the inevitable rise in rental costs so it the fault and policies of the government that have largely caused the problem so why should they be allowed to punish the people that cant afford to supply there own houses

 

[joe-90]

There's no point even discussing this - it isn't going to happen. It was just another election promise (lie) from David Cameron. It was never going to happen. Cameron knows more about U-turns than a driving instructor.

We'll just keep on borrowing and sticking it on the deficit. It's too 'brave' to actually make anyone homeless.

 

[EngStudent]

housing costs should be removed from the equasion as progressive governments have sold off council houses at knock down prices without building new housing
with the inevitable rise in rental costs so it the fault and policies of the government that have largely caused the problem so why should they be allowed to punish the people that cant afford to supply there own houses

True, but it'd cost a lot of money to build more council houses. However, it's well known that many private landlords charge above what the house is worth in rental income because they know that the government will pay it through housing benefit. By limiting the amount of housing benefit paid to individuals/families, you can drive down rental rates to an appropriate level.

That could lead to less people buying property for the sole reason of renting it out, thus making it easier to get onto the housing ladder. The only people that lose out are the landlords.

 

[big-all]

working people on benefits will never be able to buy a house unless they reduce the 20% deposit requirement
because on benefits if you have more than 6k savings you loose a proportion off benefits until you get to 16k then you get no help from the government at all
so its imposible to save a deposit on benefits

 

[EngStudent]

working people on benefits will never be able to buy a house unless they reduce the 20% deposit requirement
because on benefits if you have more than 6k savings you loose a proportion off benefits until you get to 16k then you get no help from the government at all
so its imposible to save a deposit on benefits

Fear not. Once things pick up again the 20% requirement will be gone .

Infact my brother bought a house last April with a 15% deposit; the bank offered him a mortgage on 5%, but with 15% the repayments were much lower. He was a first time buyer!