Deal struck for £9bn bonfire of the benefits

mbga9pgf

Max benefits for single parents. Once you have 2, thats it. Either get your pipes cut, or its your own problem.

ILW

Stop paying people to breed. As a country we do not need more dependents.

Wookster

carolt wrote: »

Are they suggesting either of those?

I wish they were doing the second but I don't think there are any plans for those currently working to get a non-means tested benefit! -sadly! - only that those who currently don't work will be better off if they get work.

This begs the question - will they therefore be better off than others doing the same job at the same wage, who weren't unemployed previously?

Well this is the real question.

Without removing tax credits totally (which is quite contentious, but possibly necessary) how does the government ensure it "pays to be in work" without actually paying people to be in work.

MissMoneypenny

Here are some more depressing threads for those of us that work fulltime and pay taxes for years in the UK.

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=687817

http://talk.uk-yankee.com/index.php?topic=65098.0

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=629454

LydiaJ

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Max benefits for single parents. Once you have 2, thats it. Either get your pipes cut, or its your own problem.

We've been through this countless times. Loads of single parents had kids when they weren't single, or weren't unemployed, or whatever, and have since become divorced/widowed/redundant.

I vaguely remember somebody telling me about somewhere (an American state, perhaps) where they will pay benefits in respect of any children you have (or are pregnant with) when you first start claiming, but not any more children that you may have while on benefits. I am far from sure that this would be a good idea, but it would certainly make more sense than your blanket limit of 2 for all families.

LydiaJ

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I caught the tailend of a programme about asking people whether benefits should be cut. A woman in her 60s was quite outspoken and said welfare should definately be cut. When the presenter asked if that included her benefits, she protested that she didn't get benefits. The presenter mentioned her free bus pass......her winter fuel payments: to which the woman replied, that the elderly should not have benefit cuts.:D

The same is happening on the Support for Mortgage Interest sticky on the benefits board. Those who claim to be too sick to work (and said that a mortgage protection insurance policy wouldn't recognise their illness) want the SMI limited for jobseekers (getting £65pw cash) but not for those who are off sick (getting hundreds a week in cash).

Nobody wants to lose their welfare payments, but they all seem to agree it should happen to other welfare claiments.

I was shocked to read there are now 50+ different types of benefits:eek: The cost of all those benefits and staff to sort them out, is a huge burden to welfare Britain.

Well, that's not true of everyone.

I get CTC/WTC and I think it should be reduced. I don't think they should make too much reduction to the childcare element though. I could manage without it now, but back when I had a child at nursery, the childcare element of WTC made the difference between being able to afford to work and being better off not working for me, so I worked. However, I think it should be changed. Just like HB/LHA, there should be a cap on it so it doesn't provide the same upward pressure on nursery fees that HB/LHA has been doing to rents.

I get CB. So far I've been against means testing it because I think it would involve a huge increase in admin. If it was being incorporated into WTC/CTC/universal benefit/whatever, though, then I'd support means testing the whole of the thing that replaced it, even though that would mean I'd probably get less.

I also get WPA and I don't support reducing that (or not by very much, anyway). It's contributions-based, so I feel I deserve it for the same reasons I deserve my pensions/life insurance money.

sammyjammy

LydiaJ wrote: »

I vaguely remember somebody telling me about somewhere (an American state, perhaps) where they will pay benefits in respect of any children you have (or are pregnant with) when you first start claiming, but not any more children that you may have while on benefits. I am far from sure that this would be a good idea, but it would certainly make more sense than your blanket limit of 2 for all families.

Germany had a policy of this, not sure if they still do though.

olly300

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Here are some more depressing threads for those of us that work fulltime and pay taxes for years in the UK.

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=687817

http://talk.uk-yankee.com/index.php?topic=65098.0

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=629454

Health tourism I expect from those in the US.

The fact that people think they can come back to the UK and won't be shoved in a nursing home if they are old,go senile/get really ill and have no relations to look after them I find amusing.

If they saw some of the abuse and neglect of the elderly plus the loneliness of the elderly that goes on here they would stay where they are. The grass isn't always greener.