Families hit by benefits changes

Bluemeanie_2

I don't agree with calling someone "scum" either. Not warranted.

ILW

SingleSue wrote: »

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.

I agree, the "safety net" element is what benefits should be about. What it should never ever be is a lifestyle choice offering a higher standard of living than many who work and try to live within their means though.

The_White_Horse

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:

yes, but you and all the other childless people will quite happily take your state pension, paid for by other people's children when the time comes. and probably accept treatment paid for by others taxes and meted out by the doctors and nurses of the day, which are other people's children now. plus, what about the child benefit YOU received as a child, and the free education.

real people (ie people with jobs who are hard working and decent and law abiding) should be encouraged to have kids. not to sound like whitney but those children are the future. Chav scum bacteria on the other hand should be discouraged as their offspring tend to be more of the same. scum breeds scum.

SingleSue

ILW wrote: »

I agree, the "safety net" element is what benefits should be about. What it should never ever be is a lifestyle choice offering a higher standard of living than many who work and try to live within their means though.

And on that, we agree.

Mr_Mumble

SingleSue wrote: »

No I wouldn't but that is not the point

It is the point!

1. A person or institution takes money off you without your say so.
2. That same body returns back a portion of that money.

You consider that help but I'd call it a hindrance.

DervProf

The_White_Horse wrote: »

it should have just been restricted to 2 kids per family. the end. that would have saved loads of money and been fairer. it would have stopped incentivising the chav filth to breed like bacteria.

Not to mention the lower impact on the environment and reduced demand on natural resources.

One day we will suddenly realise that our planet can't support it's human population properly. As usual, while the going's good, we don't want to make "difficult" decisions.

Flight2quality

ILW wrote: »

If you are on a low income, and decide to have two kids, you should not expect to live in the most expensive part of the country. Adjust your lifestyle to your income !!!!!!, or up your earnings to pay for your lifestyle.

Absolutely right, but the problem is the government has been paying thousands per week for low income families to live in these areas. This has pushed up rents and house prices in London.

What can the government do now? If they go cold turkey and reduce the rent they pay to the 480wk cap, that means families can only really pay around 240 wk in rent and council tax.

drc wrote: »

They came in on the 1st January 2012 but existing tenants are only affected from the anniversary date of their claim so not everyone will be affected at once and some will not have to move until the end of the year.

When does the 480 total benefit cap come in? Does anyone know?

What will be the result of all the low income families being forced to move away from London to cheaper areas? Will they smash the place up before they are forced out? Will we see riots again worse than last time?

drc

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.

I agree with you about the scum part, there is no need for silly language like that but on your second point about those in work receiving benefits, I think this is actually one of the issues a lot of people have with the benefits system.

The welfare state should not be subsidising employers who pay their employees low wages. Also, the cost in supplementary benefits for someone who is either working very few hours or not getting paid enough normally cancels out any tax or NI they pay in as what they get in return from the benefits system is normally much more.

For example, the whole tax credits fiasco currently encourages people to work a minimum of 16 hours (no more of they won't get the benefit of tax credits) which are topped up by generous working tax credits (and housing benefit and possibly some council tax benefit), so not only do they not have to work a full week but they are rewarded for not doing so by getting working tax credits. Why not just raise the level at which tax/NI is paid (so that low paid workers get to keep more of their income) and get rid of tax credits altogether and make the employer pay the difference. Why the hell should the taxpayer be subsidising companies like Tesco's and Asda?

drc

Flight2quality wrote: »

When does the 480 total benefit cap come in? Does anyone know?

What will be the result of all the low income families being forced to move away from London to cheaper areas? Will they smash the place up before they are forced out? Will we see riots again worse than last time?

You are talking about Universal Credit which is going to be slowly introduced from Sep 2013. Not sure when the overall £500 cap comes into place.

SingleSue

drc wrote: »

I agree with you about the scum part, there is no need for silly language like that but on your second point about those in work receiving benefits, I think this is actually one of the issues a lot of people have with the benefits system.

The welfare state should not be subsidising employers who pay their employees low wages. Also, the cost in supplementary benefits for someone who is either working very few hours or not getting paid enough normally cancels out any tax or NI they pay in as what they get in return from the benefits system is normally much more.

For example, the whole tax credits fiasco currently encourages people to work a minimum of 16 hours (no more of they won't get the benefit of tax credits) which are topped up by generous working tax credits (and housing benefit and possibly some council tax benefit), so not only do they not have to work a full week but they are rewarded for not doing so by getting working tax credits. Why not just raise the level at which tax/NI is paid (so that low paid workers get to keep more of their income) and get rid of tax credits altogether and make the employer pay the difference. Why the hell should the taxpayer be subsidising companies like Tesco's and Asda?

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you.

The 16 hour thing and tax credits has had a major impact on the job market, especially for the younger generation who are looking for a part time job around their studies. It has also made it incredibly difficult to find jobs which are full time hours (which in my book is around 37.5 hours a week, not the 16 hours it is seen to be now)

It also makes an awful lot of people reliant on handouts, just to be able to survive, keeps salaries lower and to my mind, make the more susceptible, more prone to wanting to keep the status quo of power the same, just so their 'income' remains the same.

It was the greatest relieft to us when we finally worked our way up and out of tax credits, no more endless forms to fill in, no more worry about having an overpayment because you happened to work a few extra hours, no more state intervention in our lives..it was absolute bliss to be honest.

Of course now, I am reliant again on the state due to circumstances but I am so looking forward to the day when I make the phone call to say I no longer need that help.