We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
MSE News: Benefits recipients could lose £1 billion
Comments
-
Oh really? So people starved 10 years ago did they, since most benefits have increased well above inflation over the last 10 years.Most workers saw their wages rise in real terms last decade. Just like benefit claimants did.0
-
I'm referring to income-related benefits in the DWP sense of those benefits calculated using the "applicable amount" - based on number of relevant individuals with premiums for e.g. severe disability - from which any amount you earn is deducted. These have not "increased well above inflation" although the criteria for claiming is much narrower than ten years ago.
Yes I understand what the applicable amount is - I'm a regular poster on the benefits forum (unlilke most others in this thread it seems!).
Virtually all elements of the AA have increased above inflation over the last 10 years, the child elements have increased massively above inflation.CTC and WTC are a different matter, applying respectively only to people with children
Including out of work people with children. The child/family elements of the AA have risen exactly in line with the rises in CTC & CHB.or doing a substantial number of hours of paid work on salaries way above what would give DWP allowance entitlement.
16 hours on minimum wage is not "way above" - it's about the same as IS for a couple.They didn't even exist a decade ago.
No, the Working Families Tax Credit did. And the Children's Tax Credit (tax allowance). And before that, the Family Credit. And before that Family Income Supplement. And before that child tax allowances.0 -
i cant understand why mse towers insists on putting these "discussions"on the benefits board,if i did it,it would be moved to DT pdq
anyway.the fact is the govt hasnt decided what to do re increases for next april,when in truth inflation will have fallen from what it was in sept and what it is now,they have touted 3 options in recent weeks no increase an increase inline with wage increases(2.4%) or based in inflation average over 6 months (4.5%),the decision will be announced in the autumn statement shortly IT IS NOT a march budget decision0 -
Virtually all elements of the AA have increased above inflation over the last 10 yearsThe child/family elements of the AA have risen exactly in line with the rises in CTC & CHB.16 hours on minimum wage is not "way above" - it's about the same as IS for a couple.0
-
i cant understand why mse towers insists on putting these "discussions"on the benefits board,if i did it,it would be moved to DT pdq
Yes, as I posted earlier, 2 other threads about exactly this were moved to DT. But although we're not really meant to discuss benefits here, when we do we get much more sensible discussions than on DT. People here tend to understand benefits better and live in the real world - there are some extremist loonies on DT who tend to take over discussions there.anyway.the fact is the govt hasnt decided what to do re increases for next april,when in truth inflation will have fallen from what it was in sept and what it is now,they have touted 3 options in recent weeks no increase an increase inline with wage increases(2.4%) or based in inflation average over 6 months (4.5%),the decision will be announced in the autumn statement shortly IT IS NOT a march budget decision
29th Nov I believe. This is probably a deliberate "test public opinion" leak, float a proposal and see what the reaction is.0 -
How much is a 4.5 percent pay rise to the workers complaining about no pay rises?
For someone on JSA its what about 3 quid a week, upping it to 70 quid a week.
How much would the workers get, and how much would their wage go up to?
Do the math, and see if you can see why its more of an issue for many on benefits.[greenhighlight]but it matters when the most senior politician in the land is happy to use language and examples that are simply not true.
[/greenhighlight][redtitle]
The impact of this is to stigmatise people on benefits,
and we should be deeply worried about that[/redtitle](house of lords debate, talking about Cameron)0 -
single people on benefits will suffer the most." The greatest wealth is to live content with little."
Plato0 -
Thank you tagq2 for being a voice of reason and compassion in a sea of bigotism and selfishness as expounded by many of the PPs.
What would the PPs who claim to be worse off than 'doleys' say to me and my family?
My husband has been trying to find a job for 6 months - he is an Environmental Scientist - no luck yet. I work for the NHS (part-time low wage, 3 year old son to look after)
How do we fit in with your narrow views of benefit recipients?
Are we living in the lap of luxury? NO!
Just stop and think about what you are saying about people who receive and rely upon benefits.
Is YOUR job iron-clad? Are you absolutely NEVER going to be out of work yourself through no fault of your own?
If you would prefer us to live in absolute poverty, then stop and think about whether you may need the same benefits in the future.
Not sure what a PP is. But I am a low earner, part time with 2 children to look after. I rely on benefits to survive, but it doesn't mean I think they should rise. If a worker doesn't get a raise in the money they receive, why should anyone else?Moving onto a better place...Ciao :wave:0 -
Im a disabled LP on benefits and don't think we should get an increase to be honest it should be frozen at the rates now untill the economy has picked up! It's getting harder for everyone, everyone has to pull up their socks and get stuck in.0
-
Those who are net contributors to society have been asked to give more via higher taxes, while those who are net takers are being asked to take less.
The difference goes to try and plug the debt/deficit hole, so we're all doing our bit.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 346.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451.4K Spending & Discounts
- 238.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 614.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 174.7K Life & Family
- 252K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards