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.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
£480 wk ben cap not enough for families in London to live on.
Comments
-
Now you're being ridiculous. It's the means-tested benefits that are supposedly designed to keep people out of poverty. Nobody has ever used "receiving child benefit" as an indicator of poverty.i.e Couple on £26,000 with 1 child claiming nothing but child benefit, your saying they shouldn't get child benefit?"It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
Now you're being ridiculous. It's the means-tested benefits that are supposedly designed to keep people out of poverty. Nobody has ever used "receiving child benefit" as an indicator of poverty.
My point was you seemed to think that by working and thus going over £26,000 net and still receiving benefits was unfair as they will have more than the maximum sum available to a work less household.0 -
Don't know where you got that from.My point was you seemed to think that by working and thus going over £26,000 net and still receiving benefits was unfair as they will have more than the maximum sum available to a work less household.
My point was, if a working parent gets means-tested top-ups on account of need, and then loses his job, and his benefits are capped at a lower level, he now gets less than he was previously deemed to need."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
Don't know where you got that from.
My point was, if a working parent gets means-tested top-ups on account of need, and then loses his job, and his benefits are capped at a lower level, he now gets less than he was previously deemed to need.
You do realise that the earnings would have effected the means tested benefits they received and so with the loss of earnings those means tested benefits will increase, subject to the cap.
If £26,000 isn't enough them you need to move same as anyone who had a mortgage and couldn't pay it would eventually have to sell or be repossessed.
The vast majority affected will be renters.
An person who has a mortgage on their house is unlikely to reach the £26,000 cap and even if they did it would likely be sufficient for their needs unless they had 8+ children.0 -
Well I know I don't get £200 per week to live on. I get just over £1k per month for working and I have to pay all bills out of that. Bring on the cap - bring people back into the real world.
And if it's too expensive to live in London - maybe people shouldn't ask for 2 million pound houses to be rented for them (I know it's not all, but I bet it's these people moaning!)2022 Target - Reduce new mortgage balance after house move - Part 1 (Ported) Starting balance £39,982.12 currently £37,242.19 Part 2 Starting Balance £101,997.88 currently £96,197.38 (as at 19/04/2022)0 -
I had someone tell me recently that they dont earn much more by working so they do as little as possible to keep the benefits. If they worked full time, they would lost benefits and only be a little better off despite working double their current hours. They preferred to work less and get paid only a little less.
That is the type of person that needs to get their benefits reduced. They can work, they can earn more (albeit not much more) than benefits but they choose to be part time and live on benefits instead. Lazy good for nothing scrounger.
I know of a factory that employs a lot of labour from eastern Europen countries. The employees use spreadsheets to calculate to the penny the in hand benefit of working an extra hours overtime taking into account WTC and CTC etc.
When they first arrive they work all hours possible and detest holidays as they provide a barrier to working overtime. After time though the benefits system brings them round to our way of thinking and turning down 2 hours of overtime because it has an effective tax rate of 70% or so.0 -
-
Haven't got a clue what you're trying to say here.You do realise that the earnings would have effected the means tested benefits they received and so with the loss of earnings those means tested benefits will increase, subject to the cap.
If you have a mortgage and lose your job you can get mortgage interest paid, but that also will come under the cap. Are you saying that the cap is justified because renters should be capped because buyers should be capped?If £26,000 isn't enough them you need to move same as anyone who had a mortgage and couldn't pay it would eventually have to sell or be repossessed.
Haven't got a clue what you're trying to say here.An person who has a mortgage on their house is unlikely to reach the £26,000 cap and even if they did it would likely be sufficient for their needs unless they had 8+ children."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
I'm not sure what your point is all I'm saying the £35k figure is dependent on the number of children and depending on the number you could earn less and get the £480 a week.
It prob is £35K earned in a job to be the same as taking home £24K. When you think about travel, tax and NI. Then think about all the other handouts the scroungers get?0 -
Darthvader wrote: »It prob is £35K earned in a job to be the same as taking home £24K. When you think about travel, tax and NI. Then think about all the other handouts the scroungers get?
Strange as it might seem if they have 5 kids they will take home £26k wages and get almost another £10k in child benefit and CTC.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards