MSE News: Benefits recipients could lose £1 billion

misfit

Still haven't noticed anyone anywhere complaining. Just lots of righteous people turning purple with anger at the thought that people on benefits might get 4.5% or whatever it may be. I haven't heard one person on benefits yet demand that they should get anything extra. If anyone is to blame for this then it is the government that devised this scheme and has now seemingly changed the rules. I cannot believe that people are furious at the people that are to get any increase...this scheme was not devised by them, it was introduced by this government.

rogerblack

mr-tom wrote: »

It is perfectly simple. Average benefit increases should be linked to average salary increases.

As a recipient of benefit, I have some sympathy with this point of view.
However, only if it'd track wages when they go up 10% as well as 1%.

The current problem is that the government are seeming to change the formula, simply as it results in a number they don't like.

If you say 'we're uprating based on CPI in September.' - and then decide that this round you're going to average over 6 months, if next September rolls around, and the other way it'd be cheaper to not average - what happens?

Will they stick to their current plans, or vary the way it's calculated again.

Half a percent here or there off the rate set by the CPI, and soon benefits are falling quite a bit behind.

I'm on benefits due to being unable to work.
I am hence on around 5K a year.
I don't have the heating on, as it's only got to 11C in the lounge.

If I was able to work, I'd hope to be bringing home 45K or so.

spingoblin

it would be absolutely delicious if next septembers cpi is something very low like 1.5% (unlikely i know) but the previous five months figures were say 4.3/4.1/3.7/3.7/2.9 (unlikely again) - giving a six month average of 4% - i wonder if osbourne would change the rules back again?

mr-tom_2

rogerblack wrote: »

As a recipient of benefit, I have some sympathy with this point of view.
However, only if it'd track wages when they go up 10% as well as 1%.

The current problem is that the government are seeming to change the formula, simply as it results in a number they don't like.

I have to agree Roger.

Yes, when wage rises are good, then benefit rises ought to be too.

I would also apply the same formula to public sector (including MPs) - link their wages and benefits to the averages enjoyed in the private sector.

This would give a level playing field nation wide

SingleSue

Dognobs wrote: »

I have not had a payrise!

I can speak from both sides as I was unemployed for a year and claiming. I WAS SHOCKED AT HOW MUCH HELP YOU GET!!! It is too much! I own my home so I was not reciving HB and only had a small amout of CTB paid. OK my wife is working in a ok job HOWEVER we have never lived above our means we made adjustments and have no debts and we lived fine. I also have ASD (I was only getting JSA) so finding a job was harder for me. But I work out that we are about £50 a week better off with me working but It is PRIDE and GOOD FOR YOU TO GET UP IN THE MORNING AND DO SOMETHING! Why people get upset is you see ALOT of people on ESA / DLA for stress, depression, anxiety, drugs/drink problems, chronic fatigue syndrome, Bad back etc driving around in a brand new disabilty car and leading a normal life when challanged they just say I was having a good day. Or a single parent walking around with UGG boots owns 50" tv and a iPhone getting a brand new build council house and grants for furnish it. Yes there will be the few that struggle but it won't be many. BENIFITS ARE A LIFELINE NOT A LIFESTYLE. Lets get rid of the greedy and help the real needy!

I am a single parent (not by choice) and I have never owned a pair of Ugg boots (they should be renamed ugly boots in my opinion, detestable things), I don't have a 50" tv, an Iphone (another complete waste of money), a brand new build council house (I have a 60+ year non standard construction house) and there has never been a grant to furnish it...I can take loans if I wish to do so to furnish it.

Back to the topic in hand, only right that benefits are frozen. The country is in deep doo doo and we all have to play a part in getting us out of it.

Vincent_Buenisedes

mr-tom wrote: »

It is perfectly simple. Average benefit increases should be linked to average salary increases.

Those complaining about 4.5% should try working their butts off for 0% year on year.

(edit) Here's a thought - why not trade the "Benefits recipients could lose £1 billion" headline for "Taxpayers could be given back £1 billion" or even "UK to reduce overspending by £1bn"?

If it was linked to earnings, JSA would be worth at least £100 per week by now.

zagfles

misfit wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone on this thread complain about getting 4.5%, just people moaning that they shouldn't.

A few people have said benefits should go up with inflation - which is more than 4.5%. And it would be quite odd if there weren't some people saying this.

zagfles

stroodes wrote: »

can i ask ..........if we are not allowed to discuss benefits ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,why have a benefits board?

To quote Martin in one of the sticky posts on the benefits board

Its about helping people get their entitlement! Not about benefits policy!

This board is here for help and support for those on or looking to claim benefits, not for judgement.

It’s ONLY focus is helping people with their money.

It's here to help people find out what they are entitled to under the current system, and to help them get it.

Benefits provide a lifeline for many, and this site is here to help people with their money, and not to judge. Of course, how to illegally defraud the benefits system shouldn't be discussed here, but ensuring you're getting your entitlement is exactly what it’s about.

We all know the benefits system is a mess – but that’s for the discussion time.

Whatever you're political persuasion, we're all aware the benefits system is a mess. Whether it’s the malpayments of tax credits, benefit fraud, or simply the fact that sometimes it doesn't pay to work - everyone has their grumble.

Yet to discuss the benefits system itself and issues around it, the appropriate place isn't here but the Discussion time Board and even there, please remember courtesy and not to make it personal about anyone. This site's prime purpose it to help people with their money and I will always act to protect that.

Thanks for your co-operation


Martin

Trouble is, discussions on DT often get taken over by the extremist loony element who start going on about Nazis, slavery, police states, and no discussion can be complete without a reference to greedy bankers and corrupt politicians...and most don't seem to understand the benefits system they are supposed to be discussing.

zagfles

rogerblack wrote: »

As a recipient of benefit, I have some sympathy with this point of view.
However, only if it'd track wages when they go up 10% as well as 1%.

The current problem is that the government are seeming to change the formula, simply as it results in a number they don't like.

If you say 'we're uprating based on CPI in September.' - and then decide that this round you're going to average over 6 months, if next September rolls around, and the other way it'd be cheaper to not average - what happens?

Will they stick to their current plans, or vary the way it's calculated again.

Half a percent here or there off the rate set by the CPI, and soon benefits are falling quite a bit behind.

I'm on benefits due to being unable to work.
I am hence on around 5K a year.
I don't have the heating on, as it's only got to 11C in the lounge.

If I was able to work, I'd hope to be bringing home 45K or so.

But also remember that in 2009, inflation was negative (both RPI & ROSSI) yet the govt did not cut benefits, in fact they increased some.

zagfles

ceridwen wrote: »

Some good points there.

1. Its my understanding the Government is in process of passing over administering Council Tax benefit to local Councils - but will only give them 90% of the money they need for this. I've already seen mention that at least some Councils will then, as I anticipated, cut the amount of C.T. help peeps on the dole get to 90% (ie make even those on the dole pay 10% of their C.T. bill:eek: out of that measly £67 odd per week).

If true it would typically mean they'd need to pay about £2pw council tax. A much smaller proportion of their income than someone on the NMW.

2. Those on the dole already sometimes have to make up rent shortfall out of their benefit.

Yes, if they live in a property costing more than the LHA rate for their area (now 30th percentile - so theoretically the cheapest 30% of rents should be affordable).

3. I dont understand why benefit claimants are due to have CPI rises (rather than RPI) in view of the fact that some housing costs already has to come out of the pockets of some of them - and soon likely to be more of them. Is the Govt trying to say that they will reverse this and ensure no claimants have to pay out rent (now) or C.T. (soon) out of this personal benefit then after all?:cool:

JSA/IS etc were never linked to RPI, they were previously linked to ROSSI which also excludes most housing costs (rents, council tax etc). CPI is probably closer to ROSSI than RPI, since it also excludes housing costs.

4. It is indeed true that monies payable for having children have risen a LOT in recent years - hardly fair for parents to claim so much more for themselves and leave others going short because of it:mad:

That's because the last govt introduced "child poverty" targets but not "adult poverty" targets.

***********************

All round - of course those on unemployment benefit should receive their due cost of living rise. Don't anyone in work think "It couldnt happen to me" (ie being unemployed). I thought that - but it did....

Looks forward to seeing MPs getting a payfreeze soon ...

Well if they get more than 4.5% I think there'll be an outcry!!