Technology1 min ago
Benefit Reforms
The issue of limiting benefits to £25000 a year can only be a good thing. How can it possibly be fair for someone who is unemployed to have an income that is higher than a lot of people in work? Some argue of the hardship it may cause but surely that's an incentive to try to get back into work as soon as possible. Yes there may not be the jobs out there for some but that's no reason for the benefits to be higher than an employed person earns. It just cannot be right.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. 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.
I think the principle of capping benefits is good but, as with the 'bedroom tax, it needs to be implemented carefully. If a large family has built up an entitlement to say £35000 in benefits (probably including a lot of housing benefit if in London) it just seems very difficult, maybe impossible, for them to cope with a £10000 cut. It may take a long time to find cheaper accommodation of a suitable size. Where it is good is that it sends a signal to those planning large families and large houses at the state's expense that they need to change their plans. It may also ensure some landlords stop charging excessive rents knowing the state will pick up the bill
Have you got a link to show the average wage is over £30000,J-J? And of course those earning money pay tax and NI and pay their housing costs and council tax out of that. A family on benefits at such high levels pay no tax or NI and will have housing benefit and council tax paid largely or fully by the state
The real trick is convincing a whole generation that the comparison they need to make is NOT, "Am I better off on benefits", but to accept, "If there is work I should take it in preference to sponging off others who are daft enough to pay for me". It's a personal moral stance thing. Benefits are helping hands to those who can not contribute but need aid, as is their right. But there seems a hopefully small portion of society that just sees gain for themselves as the only relevant thing; no sense of being fair at all.
If you are going to take that argument to its logical conclusion, the benefits caps should be set lower still at approximately £21,000, which was the median wage for all people in work in 2010 (see http://
The benefits cap stands at £500 a week for familes with children, and £350 per week for a single person, but covers a whole raft of benefits, including:
- housing benefit, so that anyone who lives in a particularly expensive house will more than likely experience a huge effective cut in the amount they receive. That benefit doesn't do much more than pay their rent, and so a cut is likely to lead to many families having to move to a cheaper area. Not a disaster in itself, but if it so happens that their best chance of getting a job is in that expensive area to start with, hardly helpful. Additionally many working families receive Housing benefit and they will also be hit by this cap;
-- Child benefit and tax credits. In particular the cap does not scale as the number of children increases, so that families with a large number of children can be hit very hard indeed, which in turn will hurt the children. Yes, maybe the parents should have been more responsible, but once the children are there you need to support them. The cap can make this harder.
-- Some (but not all) benefits related to disabilities, including Carer's Allowance and Employment & Support Allowance. People on such benefits can find it hard to get work anyway, given that they are either disabled or caring for someone who is. Therefore the benefits cap can represent an effective salary cut, hitting those people who need that support the most.
The benefits cap is arbitrary, unfair and likely to lead to more hardship for the most vulnerable.
The benefits cap stands at £500 a week for familes with children, and £350 per week for a single person, but covers a whole raft of benefits, including:
- housing benefit, so that anyone who lives in a particularly expensive house will more than likely experience a huge effective cut in the amount they receive. That benefit doesn't do much more than pay their rent, and so a cut is likely to lead to many families having to move to a cheaper area. Not a disaster in itself, but if it so happens that their best chance of getting a job is in that expensive area to start with, hardly helpful. Additionally many working families receive Housing benefit and they will also be hit by this cap;
-- Child benefit and tax credits. In particular the cap does not scale as the number of children increases, so that families with a large number of children can be hit very hard indeed, which in turn will hurt the children. Yes, maybe the parents should have been more responsible, but once the children are there you need to support them. The cap can make this harder.
-- Some (but not all) benefits related to disabilities, including Carer's Allowance and Employment & Support Allowance. People on such benefits can find it hard to get work anyway, given that they are either disabled or caring for someone who is. Therefore the benefits cap can represent an effective salary cut, hitting those people who need that support the most.
The benefits cap is arbitrary, unfair and likely to lead to more hardship for the most vulnerable.
A 'limit' to 25K seems ridiculous when many employed people don't earn that much anyway. Having benefits in line with the average salary surely just makes it a choice between going to work for the average salary or staying at home doing nothing for the same cash? It may be difficult to adapt to a 10K cut, when we had kids my wife gave up work for 5 years so we had to adapt to a loss of her 'above average' salary. We ate cheaper food, holidayed less and stayed in at weekends. We don't smoke or have satellite TV, but didn't go without anything we needed, often called living within your means I think? As for the excessive rents in London I don't think that should be a factor. Yes it is expensive in the capital, despite having two decent incomes I couldn't afford to rent there just like I can't afford a Ferrari. You need to look at your income and see what you can afford to do and where you can afford to live. If you need extra there is always the possibility of working..
kind of
I think it should kick in after 6 months
That gives people who are in that situation simply after being thrown out of work a chance to get back on their feet.
Too many people on here seem to think if you're claiming benefit you're a scrounger - almost exclusively people who have been fortunate enough never to have had to claim
I think it should kick in after 6 months
That gives people who are in that situation simply after being thrown out of work a chance to get back on their feet.
Too many people on here seem to think if you're claiming benefit you're a scrounger - almost exclusively people who have been fortunate enough never to have had to claim
-- answer removed --
“…sponging off others who are daft enough to pay for me”
The “others” are in the main, not daft, OG. I pay for people who live on benefits when they could work. But I don’t consider myself daft (not in this respect, anyway). Given the choice I most certainly would not make such payments, but I’m not blessed with such a choice.
I don’t think anybody on this particular thread has demonised those on benefits, steve. What seems to be the opinion is that the benefits cap level should not be anywhere near the “average” wage. By definition there will be a huge number of people working who earn far less than average and there is no reason why people not working through choice (or, it could be argued, some not working through no fault of their own) should enjoy a greater income than those who work. All these plans seem to be doing is to redress the balance between those who work for low wages and those who do no work at all.
The “others” are in the main, not daft, OG. I pay for people who live on benefits when they could work. But I don’t consider myself daft (not in this respect, anyway). Given the choice I most certainly would not make such payments, but I’m not blessed with such a choice.
I don’t think anybody on this particular thread has demonised those on benefits, steve. What seems to be the opinion is that the benefits cap level should not be anywhere near the “average” wage. By definition there will be a huge number of people working who earn far less than average and there is no reason why people not working through choice (or, it could be argued, some not working through no fault of their own) should enjoy a greater income than those who work. All these plans seem to be doing is to redress the balance between those who work for low wages and those who do no work at all.
Steve, Jake’s not really spot on. He’s said before that he was on benefits because rather than work in a supermarket he wanted to wait to get a job that suited him better – or words to that effect - and there are others with that attitude. Many people do jobs that don't suit them - in fact jobs they hate – but some choose not to. Benefit claimants are not all scroungers - but there are some who are on benefits by choice - and that's wrong.
as been pointed out many on housing benefit are in work, those who do no work may be ill, mentally or physically or both. Try living in the capital where according to the BBC news a few months back rents have risen seven times the rate of inflation. Not to mention that the bedroom tax is hitting those who can ill afford it. Downsize to where exactly, affordable smaller places are hard to get, in the capital its hard to get any place without huge rents, even on the periphery, so please explain how that works. If you move, where to, out of the capital, fine, but are places, work any easier to come by outside. If the 25k comprises housing benefit that could be a large chunk of the money, include child benefit. This is not black and white, and as i have had pointed out it's not solely about getting large families on the waiting list into social housing, nor will it save money. the single person in a one bed home will get their housing benefit paid in full, regardless of the fact it may be more expensive than the property that were in before. All explained by a council officer not too long ago. I have no answer, only that this is a minefield of misinformation, and headline grabbing newspapers, who talk of scroungers, benefit cheats, whilst most are not.
All true, emmie. We could have a different limit for London. The police in London get an extra payment because they have to live there and it's so expensive. Dammit, my daughter can barely afford to live there and she's an estate agent, ironically selling homes at £1 million plus, which is pretty basic accommodation in Fulham. For the price of a home in Cambridgeshire, she couldn't buy a garage there.
My argument isn't about so called scroungers, it's what level benefits should be set that is fair to those who work and pay for it. Surely it should be just to pay for the basics to live. If Sky tv, fancy mobile phones and such electronic gadgets are affordable on benefits, things that some in full time employment cannot afford, shows that in those cases, the benefits are too high. Old_geezer hit the nail on the head, it's an attitude problem with hopefully a minority.
