£480 wk ben cap not enough for families in London to live on.

dtsazza

dunstonh wrote: »

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 agree about this motivation for reduction in benefits - which sadly the cap in itself won't accomplish, though hopefully it sets the political stage for future reductions.

I would hesitate to be so critical of the claimant himself, though. If I had the option of working all day for £100, or doing nothing and getting £80, I'd strongly consider the latter. It's not necessarily lazy, just sensible.

The real travesty is that the offer of £80 is there to begin with - we should be angry at the system that forces taxpayers to give money to others for not working. Directing one's outrage at reducing welfare payments across the board will be much more effective than seething at individual (or stereotypical groups of) claimants.

Derivative

dtsazza wrote: »

I would hesitate to be so critical of the claimant himself, though. If I had the option of working all day for £100, or doing nothing and getting £80, I'd strongly consider the latter. It's not necessarily lazy, just sensible.

Exactly.

Many on this forum don't make the choice between benefits and work, because they're on £60k pa. That's great, and something to aspire to.

But the reality is that for people at the lower end of the income spectrum, they can often provide themselves with a better quality of life by signing on.

The government is to blame, not the individual.

If I offered you £20k to sit around all day, would that make you a scrounger, or me a muppet?

leveller2911

EdgEy wrote: »

Exactly.


The government is to blame, not the individual.

If I offered you £20k to sit around all day, would that make you a scrounger, or me a muppet?

Absolute twaddle of coarse the individual is to blame, not solely but equelly.

There are millions of people who earn less that £26k a year and don't give up work to scrounge so why do you think that is? its not because they can't claim is it.Its called having aspirations,work ethic and moral fibre.

Derivative

leveller2911 wrote: »

Its called having aspirations

Aspirations are all good and well, but by definition, not everyone can achieve the median wage.

Therefore, setting a cap on benefits at the median wage is nonsensical and encourages lower earners to defer to benefits.

"Scrounging" is a silly term to use when many people actually end up better off by not working.

"Scrounging" is deliberately refusing a well paid job to sit on your bum all day. Sitting on JSA and refusing a job that pays more than you currently get is scrounging.

Refusing a £15k pa job when it would mean you having to move out of your house makes you a moron. That is the situation for many at current. Even excluding the hours spent at work, their quality of life would decrease by working.

ukcarper

EdgEy wrote: »

Aspirations are all good and well, but by definition, not everyone can achieve the median wage.

Therefore, setting a cap on benefits at the median wage is nonsensical and encourages lower earners to defer to benefits.

"Scrounging" is a silly term to use when many people actually end up better off by not working.

"Scrounging" is deliberately refusing a well paid job to sit on your bum all day. Sitting on JSA and refusing a job that pays more than you currently get is scrounging.

Refusing a £15k pa job when it would mean you having to move out of your house makes you a moron. That is the situation for many at current. Even excluding the hours spent at work, their quality of life would decrease by working.

If you are a couple with a boy and girl one of which is over 10 and you live in inner west London you would receive £247 a week and would get your rent and council tax paid.

If you were earning £15k you would get £240 pay plus £164 a week and would have to pay £87 towards your rent and council tax leaving you £70 a week better off.

Derivative

ukcarper wrote: »

If you are a couple with a boy and girl one of which is over 10 and you live in inner west London you would receive £247 a week and would get your rent and council tax paid.

If you were earning £15k you would get £240 pay plus £164 a week and would have to pay £87 towards your rent and council tax leaving you £70 a week better off.

I haven't checked those figures, but if we take them as a given, you'd be working full time for an improvement of £3650 per year.

A tube season pass would eat up £1k+ of that.

bobthedambuilder

EdgEy wrote: »

"Scrounging" is a silly term to use when many people actually end up better off by not working.

Dictionary definition: "scrounging:- begging or borrowing with no intention of paying back."

I would say that's a pretty spot-on description of those who won't work because they're better off taking handouts from the State.

Derivative

bobthedambuilder wrote: »

Dictionary definition: "scrounging:- begging or borrowing with no intention of paying back."

I would say that's a pretty spot-on description of those who won't work because they're better off taking handouts from the State.

Claiming benefits can hardly be described as begging, if you fulfil the criteria, you are eligible to recieve them. Do we 'beg' our doctors to treat us on the NHS?

Neither is it borrowing. If I give you a weekly income catch free, you are not borrowing it.

We can argue about dictionary definitions all day.
I simply put the following to you:

If working pays less, the same, or a minimal amount more than staying on benefits, many people are going to choose to not work.
Our opinion of them is hardly relevant - what is needed is a change in policy.

Is it morally wrong to quit work in order to live a taxpayer funded life?

Probably.

Are people going to do it if it suits them better than working?

Yes, just as I will gladly take a £10 note lying in a street. People, on the whole, act in their own self-interest.

Unemployment benefits should afford people food, shelter, and clothing. Perhaps enough to travel in search for work. Nothing more and nothing less.

I suspect people would create jobs for themselves soon enough, even if on an informal basis.

dtsazza

EdgEy wrote: »

Aspirations are all good and well, but by definition, not everyone can achieve the median wage.

Therefore, setting a cap on benefits at the median wage is nonsensical and encourages lower earners to defer to benefits.

The hilarious consequence of this (assuming it were the policy for the standard amount and not just a cap), is that the lowest 50% of workers would be better off not working and taking benefits for a higher amount.

But then, lo and behold, the median income is now what was previously the 75th percentile. And so now half of the remaining
workers drop out.

And the amount of benefits keeps going up until we have one guy left working in the whole country, and everyone else on benefits earning exactly the same amount.


Not a serious post exactly (and it would definitely never happen like this), but there's a grain of cautionary tale in there. In particular, the median salary of those working is likely to be notably higher than the median salary of all those of working age.

ukcarper

EdgEy wrote: »

I haven't checked those figures, but if we take them as a given, you'd be working full time for an improvement of £3650 per year.

A tube season pass would eat up £1k+ of that.

I think you are normally better off working but if it's enough depends on your attitude to work I suppose.