MSE News: Benefit cap has 'couple penalty'

Bogof_Babe

Sixer wrote: »

Possibly. It isn't possible to find a solution that will see nobody with any losses. But those people will, crucially, still own a home and have a roof over their heads. We need to think going forwards and how we are going to house people in a low-wage service economy, which is what we will have for at least the next 20-30 years. And at the rate China and India are turning out top quality science and technology graduates, we probably need to be thinking about how we are going to house people for the forseeable future as in forever, ad infinitum. Better a small proportion (those with fully paid-for houses now) of a single generation than a much larger proportion of every generation to come.

Well that'll be a pensioners vote winner... NOT.

Don't see how it would work anyway, as asking prices are set by vendors not the government (thank the lord).

rotoguys

Oneday77 wrote: »

People get made redundant, fall ill, suffer injuries, disabilities etc they should get benefits but also shouldn't expect to not potentially get more than they did while working. Anyone who has never had a job but can claim upto £26,000 should consider it a job and carry out a public service role rather than sit on their backside.

Then you are looking at the system that was operative in the 60's. Payments from the NAB were limited not to an agreed overall limit or indeed how many kids they had, but to a given % of the wage that they previously enjoyed.

So those in exactly the same position (3 kids, married etc) one family would have got more than the other because they prevoiusly earned more.

They soon got rid of that stupid idea - linking benefit payments to a % of what they were able to earn if they worked.

You might as well take us back a bit further still and reintroduce the workhouses. Oh and while we are at it why not recriminalise being in debt and not able to pay your debts. Languishing in prison until they were paid or accepted bankruptcy! Then why not bring back prison sentences for being gay and those that didn't quite succeed when they attempted suicide. Those were the good years!!!

Oldernotwiser

wellynever wrote: »

As a couple who are on benefits this as no affect on me even though we have two bedrooms.

Why do you think that you won't be affected?

Bogof_Babe

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Why do you think that you won't be affected?

I can only guess that this poster is renting somewhere that costs less than the single bedroom rate.

Always_Harassed

cootuk wrote: »

As a working man with family, please where can I apply for £500pw after tax as it would be a big step up from my takehome pay?

Ditto

Know many people who claim to live apart but live together but both properties are paid for by housing benefits.

Need to help people become more self reliant.

Always_Harassed

rotoguys wrote: »

You might as well take us back a bit further still and reintroduce the workhouses. Oh and while we are at it why not recriminalise being in debt and not able to pay your debts. Languishing in prison until they were paid or accepted bankruptcy! Then why not bring back prison sentences for being gay and those that didn't quite succeed when they attempted suicide. Those were the good years!!!

Get a grip. There is no fairness in the system. I pay 25% of my wages to pay people way more than I earn.

Bogof_Babe

Actually it must be really stressful to be knowingly deceiving the system, always waiting for that knock on the door or summons to an interview under caution. I don't think I could hack it, the extra money wouldn't make up for the constant worry.

A bit like having an affair I suppose. You're bound to get found out sooner or later.

rotoguys

Always_Harassed wrote: »

Get a grip. There is no fairness in the system. I pay 25% of my wages to pay people way more than I earn.

So are you saying that your net wage is considerably less than what you would get if you were receiving benefits?

Biohazard

Does this also take in to account the future marriage allowances?

Oneday77

rotoguys wrote: »

Then you are looking at the system that was operative in the 60's. Payments from the NAB were limited not to an agreed overall limit or indeed how many kids they had, but to a given % of the wage that they previously enjoyed.

So those in exactly the same position (3 kids, married etc) one family would have got more than the other because they prevoiusly earned more.

They soon got rid of that stupid idea - linking benefit payments to a % of what they were able to earn if they worked.

You might as well take us back a bit further still and reintroduce the workhouses. Oh and while we are at it why not recriminalise being in debt and not able to pay your debts. Languishing in prison until they were paid or accepted bankruptcy! Then why not bring back prison sentences for being gay and those that didn't quite succeed when they attempted suicide. Those were the good years!!!

You have made absolutely no sense and misunderstood me. Suppose someone has been taking home £20k a year. They get made redundant and end up on benefits and they end up with say £24k in benefits. How could that a) be fair and b) encourage someone to go work. Especially if they were maybe paying child care costs while working.

My previous post should have included that if anyone's employability/ productivity is seriously hampered by illness or disability it is a fair use of benefits.