Unemployed Families Face Cap On Benefits

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

If the Tories bring out this so called Universal Benefit, everyone will suffer, does this mean that if they are going to stop certain benefits, they will stop benefitd being sent abroad by the claimants, which they do.

I have said all along, the Tories have to start on there own doorstep, l voted Lib Dems in the elections, but l won't do that again.

This government has to bring hope for this country, where there is work, at the moment there isn't any, my job is on the line due to these budget cuts, and l won't be happy if l lose it.

What are you talking about?

This thread was about a cap on benefits, you're now discussing the welfare reform which hasn't actually had many details announced.

You started off by complaining about the level of benefit you received before this coalition was in office that wouldn't get touched by this benefit cap.

What doorstep is it the Tories have to start on? Your income tax is going down, mine is going up due to slippage of the tax boundaries and we as a family are losing Child Benefit. Along with this we're all getting a VAT rise and other pain. The Tories and Lib Dems are doing their utmost to share the pain but cannot simply wring the wealthiest dry because they're the people who pay the most taxes and attempting to bleed them results in getting no taxes at all.

You're already not happy and prophesying the end of the world as we know it, I dread to think what you'll be like if you lose your job and actually get a genuine reason to complain.

[Gary L]

Won't be long till we see a rise in crime then!

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Gary L

Won't be long till we see a rise in crime then!

At least they'll be doing something to earn a living in that case. Can send them to the prison factories once they're caught

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

At least they'll be doing something to earn a living in that case. Can send them to the prison factories once they're caught

Oh my, I never thought of that..everyone committing crime just to get a job..

£500 a week gees i wish i don't even get half that and consider myself to be quite lucky i am not convinced anyone cannot live on that amount a week no matter how many kids and if they cannot it is because they are doing things they can afford to give up. Not going to bother replying to Arthur just be easier for me to stand up and smack my head against a wall be more benficial as well. Labour never fully outlined their plans because they knew damn well they wouldn't be in power to implement it although to his credit darling did say it would be worse then thatcher in the eighties. Everyone is going to feel the financial pain of labours glourious reign and i can only hope people remember who dropped us into this massive hole in the first place and don't allow the pain of dealing with it to allow them back in anytime soon.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by martyh

Usually because they are repairing the damage done to the economy by the labour party

So true

[Traduk]

I think that it is only too easy to view the upcoming changes and implications with a blinkered view based on how it affects us as individuals. So far the changes mean little to me as I have never relied in any way on government handouts but I truly fear for the general implications to others because if masses of people are affected the impact of their anger will control everybody's quality of life.

Apart from the almost certain hundreds of thousands that will lose jobs in the public sector it looks like the cap on the social safety net will disrupt potentially hundreds of thousands more (nationwide).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...tion-movements

The stress creating social implications could easily be eventually coming to a place near you and I. The misery endured by my generation through the 70's and early 80's look like nothing compared with the outcome of the coalition plans.

There is no doom and gloom predictions on my part but straightforward cause and consequence. It is not possible to withdraw the financial lifeblood from what may turn out to be millions of people without backlash and at times it could get ugly.

[Gary L]

I think it will turn ugly. people live to exist, and when you make it difficult for them they'll get a bit miffed.
society is bad enough. but to upset society even more we can only expect the consequences.

These sacrifices have to be made to aid recovery. do you think the average man on the street cares about that, and that he has to lose out in order to contribute to the fix?

he won't. if he loses out, he'll take back what he's lost from someone else.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Traduk

I think that it is only too easy to view the upcoming changes and implications with a blinkered view based on how it affects us as individuals. So far the changes mean little to me as I have never relied in any way on government handouts but I truly fear for the general implications to others because if masses of people are affected the impact of their anger will control everybody's quality of life.

Apart from the almost certain hundreds of thousands that will lose jobs in the public sector it looks like the cap on the social safety net will disrupt potentially hundreds of thousands more (nationwide).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...tion-movements

The stress creating social implications could easily be eventually coming to a place near you and I. The misery endured by my generation through the 70's and early 80's look like nothing compared with the outcome of the coalition plans.

There is no doom and gloom predictions on my part but straightforward cause and consequence. It is not possible to withdraw the financial lifeblood from what may turn out to be millions of people without backlash and at times it could get ugly.

A nice Guardian article, however surely if all these people are being forced out of areas of high housing demand won't others take their place? After all if there is such high demand for housing in these areas there will be people queuing up to live there, say like those who are presently priced out by high housing benefit and living in the suburbs.

Private landlords are full of it. They know exactly what they are doing, charging as much rent as the councils will pay, and they know that they can't get away with it they either lower the rents or their properties are vacant, they'll have to charge legitimate market rates rather than using the local authority housing benefit caps as a price list.

I get the point but think it should be queried how fair it is for those who are presently priced out of these high demand areas to be paying the rent of some of those living there. They are, in effect, paying taxes to price themselves out of some areas.

I hope that once this market distorting effect is gone the population movements will balance out. Here's hoping.

I wonder if this will have any bearing on the housing benefit cap?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11470285

Local authorities in England should keep council house rents instead of having them gathered up by Whitehall, Housing Minister Grant Shapps has said.
New government proposals will see councils keep all rent and sales receipts they collect.
But in return some councils will take on additional housing debt.

[danielf]

I have to say that this whole housing benefits thing stinks. We're talking about a cap on benefits that is equivalent to the average full-time salary before tax, and much of it is taken up by housing benefit. As much as I am in favour of a benefits system that gives people a half decent standard of living, I find it hard to justify a system that pays a family the average salary. It seems to me that there is little incentive for these people to get back to work (and I'm all too aware that many of these people are not going to walk into jobs that are in increasingly short supply) as they are likely to earn less than on benefits, and in all likelihood would have to move somewhere cheaper if they got back into work.

Yes, that's one of your resident left whingers speaking.

Thing is Daniel not all of us claimants get anywhere near that amount and i would bet the majority do not even come close. Yes there are people getting that but they are a minority and not representative of claimants as a whole. Sadly there is little political leverage in making the true facts available and it is far better to highlight the blatent excesses rather then the reality that many live with day to day. Just totalled ours up including housing benefit we get £12,452 a year which is good for a benefit system but not as extravagent as some would like the working population to believe.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by danielf

I have to say that this whole housing benefits thing stinks. We're talking about a cap on benefits that is equivalent to the average full-time salary before tax, and much of it is taken up by housing benefit. As much as I am in favour of a benefits system that gives people a half decent standard of living, I find it hard to justify a system that pays a family the average salary. It seems to me that there is little incentive for these people to get back to work (and I'm all too aware that many of these people are not going to walk into jobs that are in increasingly short supply) as they are likely to earn less than on benefits, and in all likelihood would have to move somewhere cheaper if they got back into work.

Yes, that's one of your resident left whingers speaking.

This is a genuine question as my comprehension isn't at its' finest today.

Am I reading this correctly Daniel, seems you are saying that housing benefits can be overly generous and can provide people a better quality of life than they could make through working as they remove the cost of housing as an 'issue', which in turn allows them to live in areas their earning potential wouldn't allow them to?

If I am we agree twice in two days, bet you feel dirty now

You're very right of course, the purpose of any welfare state should be a safety net to ensure a minimum standard and quality of life, nothing more and definitely nothing less.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

This is a genuine question as my comprehension isn't at its' finest today.

Am I reading this correctly Daniel, seems you are saying that housing benefits can be overly generous and can provide people a better quality of life than they could make through working as they remove the cost of housing as an 'issue', which in turn allows them to live in areas their earning potential wouldn't allow them to?

If I am we agree twice in two days, bet you feel dirty now

That is exactly what I'm saying, and I'm indeed feeling very dirty indeed.

You're very right of course, the purpose of any welfare state should be a safety net to ensure a minimum standard and quality of life, nothing more and definitely nothing less.

Yes, and we probably disagree on what the minimum standard should be. Personally, I am convinced there are many people that will probably never get back into work, and paying them the absolute minimum and have them live in ghettos (which we have plenty of as it is) is not a society I want to live in (if only cause they will nick my telly). Paying people the equivalent of the average wage before tax just so they can live in a nice house isn't on though.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Thing is Daniel not all of us claimants get anywhere near that amount and i would bet the majority do not even come close. Yes there are people getting that but they are a minority and not representative of claimants as a whole. Sadly there is little political leverage in making the true facts available and it is far better to highlight the blatent excesses rather then the reality that many live with day to day. Just totalled ours up including housing benefit we get £12,452 a year which is good for a benefit system but not as extravagent as some would like the working population to believe.

I would hope the working population aren't naive enough to think that although many are regrettably.

Welfare bills are too high because of two things, too many people on it (function of the economy and of idle-itis) and the outliers you mention.

What you receive isn't good. It is, I hope, adequate to keep you running until you are either able to leave the welfare system or to keep you going if you are unable to leave the welfare system.

Most of the talk has to, necessarily, be about getting rid of the outliers and disincentivising idle-itis simply because that's where a lot of the action has to be. Along with that giving the appropriate conditions for economic growth to reduce the other contributor and all is good.

Or would be, but it has to be done within the context of massive structural budget deficits.

---------- Post added at 13:27 ---------- Previous post was at 13:25 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

Yes, and we probably disagree on what the minimum standard should be. Paying people the equivalent of the average wage before tax just isn't on though.

Actually read my post above, I suspect we don't disagree as much as you think. Certainly the average wage after tax is unacceptable, thankfully this is a small minority largely feeding unscrupulous landlords with housing benefit. Get rid of that minority and the rents have to go down to market rate which helps out with scarcity of housing. Win:win.