Families hit by benefits changes

CLAPTON

silvercar wrote: »

More accurately, if you provides home for your children you are expected to decide for yourself sleeping arrangements.

Kids are not prevented from sharing, being entitled to more rooms than you have means you can access waiting lists for larger properties or recieve more in LHA. It doesn't automatically provide those rooms.

it does/did automatically provide the option for more LHA however

Percy1983

LydiaJ wrote: »

In any case, suppose you do pay benefits for two kids only. Some benefit claimants will go on and have 6 kids regardless, and then what happens to those kids? It's still the same old problem - how do you disincentivise childbearing among the benefit-dependent population without disadvantaging the children of those families even more than they would be anyway? It's very difficult.

I have a solution, firstly many less would have more than 2 children if they didn't get more money + bigger property.

Now if people have more children than they can afford they will end up neglecting said children, so take children off neglectful parent(s) and give them to parents who will look after them properly.

SingleSue

Could we please, please, stop using the word scum to describe anyone receiving any kind of benefit (and remember, tax credits for those working are also benefits)....it is a tad upsetting and ever to slightly offensive to read.

Also, would like to point out (for what seems like the hundredth time), working people can also receive help towards their rent and council tax...it is not a benefit just for the jobless/not working for other reasons.

Mr_Mumble

SingleSue wrote: »

Also, would like to point out (for what seems like the hundredth time), working people can also receive help towards their rent and council tax...it is not a benefit just for the jobless/not working for other reasons.

If a mugger steals £50 and returns £20 do you consider them helpful?

SingleSue

No I wouldn't but that is not the point, the point is that a fair few assume that it is ony the non working (for whatever reason), who are receiving help with their rent and council tax, when it is not.

I just thought it best to put a reminder in.

chewmylegoff

Flight2quality wrote: »

True of course. But the main issue here is can the government just go cold turkey and cut total benefits down to 480 a week per family? This will be catastrophic for all families getting about 250 per week housing and council tax benefit. Most of those affected will be in inner London, but riots and social unrest could spread far more than it did in 2011.

So basically you're upset that your benefits are going to be cut and now you will not be able to buy more gold and silver that you illegally do not declare. Mind you wasn't it only about a grand's worth anyway...

chewmylegoff

SingleSue wrote: »

Could we please, please, stop using the word scum to describe anyone receiving any kind of benefit (and remember, tax credits for those working are also benefits)....it is a tad upsetting and ever to slightly offensive to read.

Horsey is just a persistent troll, but if you find him offensive, you're best putting him on ignore really, complaining will just encourage him.

Sapphire

SingleSue wrote: »

Could we please, please, stop using the word scum to describe anyone receiving any kind of benefit (and remember, tax credits for those working are also benefits)....it is a tad upsetting and ever to slightly offensive to read.

Also, would like to point out (for what seems like the hundredth time), working people can also receive help towards their rent and council tax...it is not a benefit just for the jobless/not working for other reasons.

Perhaps 'scum' is too derogatory, but you must understand that many taxpayers are understandably outraged about the enormous benefits that are being paid from their hard=earned wages to subsidize people who make the life choice to breed. It is especially unfair that those who have not made this life choice, and who have never claimed any benefits and pay their own way in life, have to subsidize those that do breed. Those benefits can total more than many taxpayers themselves earn. This is very, very wrong in my view.

I am a working person and not a high-rate taxpayer, but am certainly not entitled to 'receive help towards' my rent and council tax, as you state with such apparent conviction.

People should not have children unless they can afford to support them, including adjusting their standard of living to do so if necessary. That is what used to happen until relatively recently.

Yet another aspect of the 'entitlement culture'. :mad:

Bluemeanie_2

Sapphire wrote: »

Perhaps 'scum' is too derogatory, but you must understand that many taxpayers are understandably outraged about the enormous benefits that are being paid from their hard=earned wages to subsidize people who make the life choice to breed. It is especially unfair that those who have not made this life choice, and who have never claimed any benefits and pay their own way in life, have to subsidize those that do breed. Those benefits can total more than many taxpayers themselves earn. This is very, very wrong in my view.

I am a working person and not a high-rate taxpayer, but am certainly not entitled to 'receive help towards' my rent and council tax, as you state with such apparent conviction.

People should not have children unless they can afford to support them, including adjusting their standard of living to do so if necessary. That is what used to happen until relatively recently.

Yet another aspect of the 'entitlement culture'. :mad:

I couldn't have worded it better myself.

SingleSue

I state that with 'apparent conviction' because I know it to be true! Those working on minimum wage with children (and who knows, they may have been made redundant and have taken on any job to be working rather than claiming for everything), can still receive help with their rent. It would not be the full rent paid but it would be an amount towards it.

And of course I understand that some tax payers are outraged but sometimes that outrage is under misconceptions about who to and why benefits are paid...it is not just to those who breed, you can get 'breeders' who work, you can get benefit claimants who do not breed or claimants who used to work and had children which they could afford at the time and some bad luck has befallen them.

But to label anyone who receives help scum, is a little too eek for my liking.

*TWH and I have an understanding on it now, it's when a load of others bandy it about on a thread too that I start getting antsy.