News1 min ago
Should there be a maximum limit on benefits?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15808922
It is proposed that the present limit is curtailed to a maximum of £500 per week or equivalent to £35,000 a year gross.
It is proposed that the present limit is curtailed to a maximum of £500 per week or equivalent to £35,000 a year gross.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“The main reasons for the higher benefits is because of a large family with many dependents plus the fact that housing benefit in the posher areas of London pushes up the claimant bill.”
Exactly, rov. And somebody working would have to (a) consider the number of dependents they knock out and (b) consider where they live so as to minimise their housing costs. Those on benefits have no such worries. Have another child? No worries, we’ll give you some more money each week. Live in an area where rents are expensive and increasing? No bother, we’ll simply increase your housing benefit to match your landlord's increasing rent.
It is absolutely outrageous that those living on benefits can have an effective income far in excess of that enjoyed by those working, and that the said income is protected against the increased costs whith which those working must cope.
At the very least benefits should be frozen at the level of entitlement which prevailed when the claimant first claimed. So, have another child? Tough, you must manage with your current income (just as those working must). Rent gone up? Too bad, cut your smoking, drinking or gambling to find your increased housing costs (just as those working have to).
Until policies such as this are pursued the UK will never rid itself of the huge welfare burden which it has managed to accumulate by being utterly ridiculous.
Exactly, rov. And somebody working would have to (a) consider the number of dependents they knock out and (b) consider where they live so as to minimise their housing costs. Those on benefits have no such worries. Have another child? No worries, we’ll give you some more money each week. Live in an area where rents are expensive and increasing? No bother, we’ll simply increase your housing benefit to match your landlord's increasing rent.
It is absolutely outrageous that those living on benefits can have an effective income far in excess of that enjoyed by those working, and that the said income is protected against the increased costs whith which those working must cope.
At the very least benefits should be frozen at the level of entitlement which prevailed when the claimant first claimed. So, have another child? Tough, you must manage with your current income (just as those working must). Rent gone up? Too bad, cut your smoking, drinking or gambling to find your increased housing costs (just as those working have to).
Until policies such as this are pursued the UK will never rid itself of the huge welfare burden which it has managed to accumulate by being utterly ridiculous.
it does not pay to work..the mentality of these scroungers is justified by the very fact that they will recieve this ludicrous amont of money for sitting on their arses all week while the rest of us work,pay our taxes and contributions so that the workshy can live in the manner to which they have been accustomed..why should they go to work and have to pay for their rent and council tax and be out of pocket???...its the society in which we live and people will take full advantage that they will be looked after financially by the govt..until people get a decent living wage and taxes are lowered [including council taxes] for the working classes then this situation will get worse...why should people not pay council tax and be privvy to the same local services that people who do pay get??? unemployed folk should be made to work in the community for their benefits..they take enough out of society and should be made to work for nothing to contribute and put something back into society..
I don’t know if you were being straightforward, flippant or facetious, but you’re quite right, ummm.
Somebody who may once have been able to have afforded an larger family but suddenly finds themselves in more straitened times cannot expect the taxpayer to fund their earlier expectations, no matter how hard working they were. The sooner the nation rids itself of the idea that the State must provide for their every need and expectation the quicker we may return to some semblance of normality.
Somebody who may once have been able to have afforded an larger family but suddenly finds themselves in more straitened times cannot expect the taxpayer to fund their earlier expectations, no matter how hard working they were. The sooner the nation rids itself of the idea that the State must provide for their every need and expectation the quicker we may return to some semblance of normality.
“It's also not these peoples fault that the property market went nuts.”
That may well be true, ummm. But a person who is working and who falls victim of the property market going nuts cannot do much else other than adjust their lifestyle to accommodate the differing circumstances. Those on benefits have no such worries – their increased costs are simply met by the taxpayer. And this is patently unfair.
That may well be true, ummm. But a person who is working and who falls victim of the property market going nuts cannot do much else other than adjust their lifestyle to accommodate the differing circumstances. Those on benefits have no such worries – their increased costs are simply met by the taxpayer. And this is patently unfair.
its greedy landlords that benefit from this system..and the unemployed pay no council tax..why should hard pressed families who work their butts off,and struggle to pay £100.00 a month council tax be hounded by baliffs while scroungers sit in their homes rent free watching sky on their 52in lcd tvs??without the fear of a knock at the door with the threat of them taking their hard earned valuables where is the justice in that for the working man/woman??
Plus they are in receipt of more than this when you add together the incidentals such as free school meals, the free prescriptions, healthcare, legal aid......etc
I have never been envious of folk but I have often wondered about giving up work so I wouldn't have to struggle makiung ends meet, paying out the transport to and from work etc. But I just could mentally do that.
I have never been envious of folk but I have often wondered about giving up work so I wouldn't have to struggle makiung ends meet, paying out the transport to and from work etc. But I just could mentally do that.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.