Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News0 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.
Another thing of course is that just because the cap is set at £25k does not mean that all or most people receiving benefits will get this amount. There are not that many people who will be affected, and in many cases they are people who have been caught out by a change in circumstances already. Losing a job, or the main breadwinner has left the household, for example, while stuck with a house and sizable family (3+ kids) that was at the time entirely sustainable.
I don't know. I think people should be punished for crimes, not mistakes or errors of judgment, and children shouldn't be penalised for the mistakes of their parents either. But the issue is, anyway, far more complicated than a simple cap applied nationally and arbitrarily can deal with.
I don't know. I think people should be punished for crimes, not mistakes or errors of judgment, and children shouldn't be penalised for the mistakes of their parents either. But the issue is, anyway, far more complicated than a simple cap applied nationally and arbitrarily can deal with.
No jim. But neither does one size of salary fit all. However those in work do not have their salary adjusted to suit their needs. They have to organise their needs to suit their salary.
There was an article on the radio a week or two back (to do with the so-called "bedroom tax" I think) and one of the contributors said that those living on benefits (who might have to move) "...face having to change their children's schools and travel longer distances to visit their relatives and think very carefully whether to have another child".
"Welcome to the real world" came the reply. "People in work make these decisions (and many more) day in, day out."
That's what this question is all about. Why should people living on benefits (regardless of why they do so) be sheltered from the lifestyle deciions (and the consequences of those decisions) that people in work - especially those on low wages - have to make all the time?
There was an article on the radio a week or two back (to do with the so-called "bedroom tax" I think) and one of the contributors said that those living on benefits (who might have to move) "...face having to change their children's schools and travel longer distances to visit their relatives and think very carefully whether to have another child".
"Welcome to the real world" came the reply. "People in work make these decisions (and many more) day in, day out."
That's what this question is all about. Why should people living on benefits (regardless of why they do so) be sheltered from the lifestyle deciions (and the consequences of those decisions) that people in work - especially those on low wages - have to make all the time?
jim, yes it is far more complex, What also happens if say mum and dad with one child want another, but have had to downsize from their social housing because their little family unit was too big according to the council, legislation, so do they go up the ladder of housing again for a bigger property if mummy has another baby...
so some of those in the capital will move out, however supposing they have a reasonably good job in the capital, but not quite enough to actually make ends meet here, high rents as we know, they are unlikely to get an equivalent job outside, wages wise, so they commute in.
as we know rail fares are high, so caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. And who gets their property they have had to vacate because it was too big? Anyone who has a large family... as councils have a duty to house families first, at least that is what we were told. Many do live in the real world, it's just that it's fast becoming a place that no one but the very wealthy can afford.
as we know rail fares are high, so caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. And who gets their property they have had to vacate because it was too big? Anyone who has a large family... as councils have a duty to house families first, at least that is what we were told. Many do live in the real world, it's just that it's fast becoming a place that no one but the very wealthy can afford.
emmie, do not think I have ever disagreed with you but in this case I have to say when I was younger with a small family living in small private rented accomodation I would have dearly loved more children but one has to make choices, we never had the space for an addition to the family or the money to upgrade our housing - so your little "family" with one child will have to make the choice of staying at one child or moving into private accomodation so as to have room for their increasing family.
full time workers, however how many part time workers are there, and most seem to be women
http://
http://
I would only be daft, OG, if I made my payments willingly. I do not. I have cash confiscated from me each and every month and it is distributed, not in accordance with my wishes, but with those in Parliament.
Yes, I could have spent my life not working and sponged off the State. But in my view to have wasted my life doing nothing productive whilst being dependent on others for my existence would be the greatest folly of all.
Yes, I could have spent my life not working and sponged off the State. But in my view to have wasted my life doing nothing productive whilst being dependent on others for my existence would be the greatest folly of all.
About £25k it seems.
http://
I guess those lower paid are more likely to have paid overtime opportunities (or maybe make money on the side doing jobs for friends/neighbours ?)
http://
I guess those lower paid are more likely to have paid overtime opportunities (or maybe make money on the side doing jobs for friends/neighbours ?)
I suppose the only fair way is to pay those on benefits equivalent to what anyone on the minimum wage would earn and no more. Given this parity they could then cut their cloth accordingly, as those in work would have to do and if that means moving to a cheaper area to live to make ends meet then so be it. It's only like someone in a well paid job then is made redundant, having to take a another job but on a lot less money. They would have to take those steps I have outlined. That's life.
Well perhaps. Ironically that is yet another argument against this cap, because in a sense it doesn't go far enough to achieving what it sets out to do.
When you are saying you want to cut all benefits to the minimum wage level, does this include benefits that go to people who are also disabled -- and therefore have litle or no hope of getting into work -- or employed but in low-paying jobs?
For all that I am against this particular measure, it's clear for all to see that the current benefits system needs to be improved in some significant ways. I'm not sure that just a general cut to levels is the solution, though -- better to try and take active measures to reduce the number of people who need benefits in the first place.
When you are saying you want to cut all benefits to the minimum wage level, does this include benefits that go to people who are also disabled -- and therefore have litle or no hope of getting into work -- or employed but in low-paying jobs?
For all that I am against this particular measure, it's clear for all to see that the current benefits system needs to be improved in some significant ways. I'm not sure that just a general cut to levels is the solution, though -- better to try and take active measures to reduce the number of people who need benefits in the first place.
