The benefit cap.

[Alarm]

IMHO, there should be a different approach supporting people who can't work due to a medical condition and people who simply don't want to work - for them the benefits should be a percentage of the minimal wages, as it is in many other countries, and should be limited in time - a year, for example, is more than enough for anybody to find another job.

Fair point, but I know some with 100`s of job applications and no work, so a blanket answer is not fair.

It is interesting, how many adults (say age 30 or more), who work, have to pay rent. My experience is limited, of course, but most of the people I know (friends, acquaintances, colleagues, neighbours) in that age group pay mortgage rather than rent. Well, when I got a mortgage, I also bought a life insurance, just enough to pay the mortgage if I am incapacitated.

As does anyone with a mortgage

In the worst case scenario, if somebody can't afford to pay rent in a certain area but don't want to move away from their families, I suppose the families could support their loved ones, if they are so attached to each other. Again, this is what people do in many other countries, where the benefits are not so generous.

So where are all these people going to move to? Will not the rental prices go up there? Forcing all to move again? Totally unworkable.

 

[AronSearle]

so in general the people in the 26k trap are already worse off than most below them so a double blow with both housing and general costs being more

Nope, the HB is set dependant upon their housing cost/savings, and it is a cost that goes through them to the landlord.

If their rent is £400pm or £2000pm it is money going to their landlord through them (unless they pinch the money, then it goes direct to the landlord).

Frankly, at 26k (£2000pm), such people should move. My family bought me up in a 1 bedroom flat, because that's what they could afford. I see no reason why anyone should have subsidised rent at a rate almost 4x times minimum wage.

gas water electric phone tv buy all clothes and houshold equipment buy all food

I wasn't aware gas, water or electricity was set at different rates depending on your area, hmmmmm?

TV is a luxury.

Cloths? Even in London you can go to primark and pick bargain bin cloths, and plenty of supermarkets in London sell cloths at prices almost identical to northern prices.

The same for food, plenty of food markets in london and supermarkets, there is a difference, but it's hardly a chasm.

Household equipment? Spoons and forks and plates last a lifetime, toasters and etc last years, why should this be a major issue for those on JSA etc for short periods?

Regarding Housing benefit asingle parent with child would only get 1 bedroom rate until the child reached 7 yrs old IIRC.

In my area this is approx £80 per week.

Nope.

I live across the road from a bunch of two bedroom flats, that have a number of single mothers in them, including the one I know personally.

Would you move of you became incapacitated? Your partner?

Yes, is there any reason I shouldn't.

I find it funny that Poles, Pakistanis and Chinese come here looking for work, leaving their country and family behind, but people can't move a dozen miles or so.

 

[Alarm]

If emigrating I agree.
I have moved in the past through choice, not because of lack of work. Commuted 220 miles a day.
If I was in the situation and was told I had to move then I would most certainly object.

So,hypothetically I`m in the situation we are discussing, I get moved. As do say 50 other people. Where do we go? Also where would the population in the other area go as they are in the same boat so to speak.
Would the influx not cause more unemployment issues in the new area? And visa versa?
How would the new area cope with the sudden increase of one bedroom housing stock?
Would the law actually allow a household with two sons a daughter and a couple to live in a one bedroom abode ( You mentioned it( You know the answer is no)).

So to save some money, we decimate the housing stock for the indigenous population. Increase unemployment. Make social housing take a 100 year backward step.

You have really thought this through.

 

[joe-90]

So what's the option? The country goes bust - then there'll be no messing around, no benefits at all. If person X can live on minimum wage then so can Y and Z.

 

[big-all]

big-all, not sure what facts would you like, I don't have access to her bank account . I know her, see her on regular basis, have been in the house she lives with the kids, helped her move furniture,

people can be on benefits for many reasons
iff you start life on benefits you wont have many luxuries without other help [working on the side/generous dad /inheritance /lottery win ect]

people can enter benefits in a good state [un employment/ divorce/partners death etc] because they have no debts and all the gismos they have just to survive on the money rather than servicing expensive debt paying over the odds for the washing machine off the tally man ect of course eventually as things wear out the problems start and standard will drop as the money has to go further and again possibly the help already mentioned[working on the side/generous dad /inheritance /lottery win ect]

i am no more than someone that likes to help people less fortunate in life i understand figures and can make sense off the benefits system [just about ]
i just find it sad that people are fighting each other and blaming each other rather than getting together and and help stop the politicians the city the banks who so far have had little or no pain and great bonuses

 

[Alarm]

So what's the option? The country goes bust - then there'll be no messing around, no benefits at all. If person X can live on minimum wage then so can Y and Z.

If I knew the answer I would call Downing Street now.
But forced moves, creating "ghettos". Is thought to be the answer then it is really time to emigrate.
There is always going to be a need for welfare, the ease of how it can be had has to be addressed.
Also it can be related to how much you have contributed to the welfare service. Never worked you get a bare minimum, many years of contributions then you get a fairer deal. But still making the effort to get back when capable or jobs become available depending on the individual circumstances.
That would put a stop to the people coming here with nothing and expecting a house and a few grand a month. A massive saving in itself.
Awaits the Internet police to screen shot this.

 

[AronSearle]

If I was in the situation and was told I had to move then I would most certainly object.

I will stop you right here.

It's not that you are being told to move, it's that you are not being given the money to stay where you are.

The whole reason the benefits system has gotten out of hand, is because of the way the language has been baztardized (that's not a swear word!) to generate a sense of entitlement.

So you would not be a brave tenant objecting to being kicked out, but a benefit claimant objecting to not being given handouts to stay in your high rent property, property plenty of workers cannot afford.

And as I cycle 8 miles to work, to specifically live in a lower rent area compared to where I work, (no tube network in the sticks!) and others with cars do triple that, I fail to see what makes some people so special that they can't move.

The rest of your post is uninformed, there is a spate of rental accommodation outside of city centres, that still offer transport links, and it's only city centres (particularly London with it's massive tube network) where this is an issue.

But forced moves, creating "ghettos

Need I say more, "forcing" someone to move out of a 2000pm place to a 700pm place (average price for 2 bed house in my area), is creating ghettos?

I smell a labour voter.

 

[Alarm]

You smell wrong then kiddo.

700pcm for a 2 bed house.........where are you then?
Nowhere near anywhere decent from the sound of it.

So you get FORCED out of where you are because you got made redundant. Go to this idealistic place you live in and work where?
Your child (s) education is ripped apart.
Your partner now has to stop work to get the child (ren) to school.

Whats the jobs like where you are?

You specifically ride to work, more like thats as close as you can afford. What about the ones who could afford and through no reason are unemployed/ill.
Not that there is much point arguing as it is in place now is it not? Has been in London for a while, FYI. But for the big scroungers in 5k a month houses.
So much for your information.

I smell a liberal.

 

[AronSearle]

700pcm for a 2 bed house.........where are you then?

As it says by my sig, bucks.

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/pro...=700&price_min=600&q=bucks&search_source=home

plenty of 2 bed places there, mostly flats, some detached houses.

most better than places I have lived in the past.

And that was a 2 second search on the first website I clicked on, c'mon you are not even trying.

Nowhere near anywhere decent from the sound of it.

http://www.visitbuckinghamshire.org/

Buckinghamshire offers beautiful countryside, including the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the River Thames

But then if you really believe I live in a crap area, you are really just arguing that I should have to pay for someone else to live in a nicer area than me, because it wouldn't be fair for them to live in a bad area, like me.

Not much of an argument either way.

So you get FORCED out of where you are because you got made redundant.

Not being given money to pay your rent = forced out = no.

putting it in capitals doesn't make it true.

Go to this idealistic place you live in and work where?

Work where?

What are you saying, that no work exists anywhere else, maybe there is more work elsewhere, maybe there isn't. what if the JSA centre finds them work elsewhere, what can they plead then.

I don't understand this argument that if you move someone they suddenly won't be able to find work.

I also don't understand that if there really isn't work somewhere, why you don't argue to move those people to higher rent places where work is.

Silly argument.

Your child (s) education is ripped apart.

Plenty of people in the military move often, and move their children with them.

I don't know where this myth came from that moving school "Ripped apart" a child's education, it's not like they will be moving every 6 months.

I mean, who HASN'T been moved schools at some point as their parents move house, it's rather common in my experience.

Your partner now has to stop work to get the child (ren) to school.

So the partner has to get the children to school on the way to work, but now that you move that's no longer possible, and there are no other resources?

Seems a bit of a reach really, you can probably come up with some special cases where that is so, but you don't built up a massive edifice of a system to support a few.

The situation you describe also applies to many working people who earn less than the proposed cap on HB.

You specifically ride to work, more like that's as close as you can afford. What about the ones who could afford and through no reason are unemployed/ill.

Yes, what about them, what is your argument here?

I can't afford to do something, they can't either, but somehow they should get the money given to them instead. You don't actually make an argument here.

I smell a liberal.

Classical liberal or liberal democrat?

Don't see why I smell wrong with you, all your arguments are parrots of labours.

 

[Nige F]

[I smell a labour voter.

I`ve not posted before because I`m the Red Under the Bed and the smell is worse than a week old guzunder I`m still a Socialist - but Blair did more harm to Socialism than Maggie ever did - I just don`t vote now tho` I voted labour from 1972 until Blair killed it off

 

[AronSearle]

Blair didn't kill of socialism/labour.

Labour did great things once, working conditions, healthcare, benefits, unions, pensions, social housing etc.

The problem is that once they did these things, they didn't say "right, job done lads, let's pack up and go home".

Instead they just kept doing more, and more, and more, and more. They didn't know when to stop, they acted like government should do everything, and couldn't or wouldn't see that doing too much was as harmful as doing too little.

So benefit nets turned into benefit traps, social housing turned into something for the needy to something for the middle class as well, people stopped saving for their own pensions (and when they did gorgon raided them), healthcare started doing breast implants and IVF, and good working conditions turned into H&S madness where you can't go up a ladder any-more without employing someone to do a risk assessment.

And the sad thing is, is that when people talk of trying to wind it back, you hear cries of "you want to destroy the welfare state and throw people on the street!".

Blair was the symptom not the disease (and Cameron is the hair to Blair).

 

[joe-90]

This guy makes good sense. ^

 

[enyam]

This guy makes good sense. ^

Indeed he does and one of the best post's for some time.

 

[joe-90]

He's bound to get banned then.

 

[Alarm]

Don't see why I smell wrong with you, all your arguments are parrots of labours.

Wrong again, just someone who feels that an across the board "No situation" taken into account blanket is unfair.
As before you have not even addressed the mention of contributions, the fact that those who have made none should get the absolute basic.

Again, why should you have to move 50 miles or more away from somewhere you have roots, when as I said it was not your fault your in this situation?

Just looked here http://www.totaljobs.com/JobSearch/...neer&Industry=4&LTxt=Buckinghamshire&Radius=5 Found 1 job in 5 random jobs searches. So its screaming out for more people

I don't understand this argument that if you move someone they suddenly won't be able to find work.

I also don't understand that if there really isn't work somewhere, why you don't argue to move those people to higher rent places where work is.

Silly argument.

I never said they will not find work, I said it will decimate a already scarce job market. The above link proves that after 5 random searches.

A good idea if they are willing to move then assist them with a job guarantee and maybe a ( guaranteed deposit, as they will not be rich will they if unemployed and on benefits) hand with the rehousing.
As for a silly argument, you admit you do not understand. when you do pass judgment.

Fair enough the military move, that is with assistance generally subsidized housing job guarantees and the back up of education services/assistance. And thru choice.
Look what happens when they leave, many end up in the exact situation we are discussing.
And moving during important exam times is proven to affect results. But of course you did not bother to think about that.

(FYI cheapest 2 bed flats in my area £1,338PCM, houses..you`ll be lucky but expect £2200PCM)

So what if the wife works part time the man redundant? One child in primary another about to sit exams? But entitled to JSA or what ever they give? ( just in case, no this is not me).
Move them?

Actually I have an idea, something along the lines of a loan. Repayable when back in work, and only available to people with proven NI and Tax contributions.
That cuts down on the long term freeloaders who have no inclination of working and the ones arriving with hands out.

Labour, nope.
If you dont understand anything just ask.