MSE News: Prime Minister David Cameron plans welfare crackdown

Morlock

minx66 wrote: »

Give one benefit equal to a 39 hour working week on minimum wage, then let these people receiving it pay their own rent, council tax and other bills like the rest of us have to. A person working 39 hours a week on a minimum wage should NOT be worse off than a person on benefits.

A lot of unemployed people would be extremely grateful for an amount equivalent to the minimum wage. The fact is that a huge percentage of claimants get nowhere near that amount, particularly if living outside of the south-east where a huge portion of the 'benefits' they 'receive' go straight in to their landlords' pockets.

minx66

WORKING people also have to pay rent. I disagree a lot of unemployed would be grateful for an equivalent amount, if you add up rent, council tax school meals, school trips and baby milk, to name a few then the unemployed are better off. Why is it quite a few pupils at my childrens school can not go on some trips because their working parents simply can't afford to pay for them, if the parents are unemployed they don't have to pay a penny. Does that seem right to you?
Giving council properties to single mothers (not much more than children themselves) should stop, it just encourages teenagers to become single parents, if they had to remain with their parents then things may change, these properties should be given to families who need them. Yes there are always going to be exceptions and these need to be considered first, but its families that carry on through generations thinking the state should pay for everything and they don't have to work for anything that really gets to me. My parents always taught me, if you want nice things then you have to earn them and thats what I'm passing on to my children.

Popperwell

BurnleyBob wrote: »

This is more salami slicing, divide and rule stuff that'll go on until 2017 according to George Osborne who recently upped the austerity cuts timeframe from 2015.

Before someone says "ah, but they may lose the next General Election and..."

You can bet the proverbial house on Labour carrying forth their plans and not reversing any reforms this government has and will introduce. For 18 years they moaned and groaned about what Thatcher and Major introduced then Blair and Brown kept them all, without any exceptions.

Why? Because they have exactly the same agenda: to follow what their banker and multinational corporations' bosses want.

I must admit that I didn't think these proposals would be outlined until the pound was attacked by speculators and an IMF bailout was in the offing to be used as a figleaf to drive them through. Although, they've probably looked at Greece and Spain primarily who are suffering no end and yet not a bullet has been fired thus far in those countries, and as Britons are generally far more docile than a typical Greek or Spaniard then they're going to make hay in the sunshine.

I imagine 25-35-year-olds in receipt of Housing Benefit will become their next targets along with those above 35 who are classed as long-term unemployed.

They'll get round to attacking pensioners by means-testing their bus passes and Winter Fuel payments before too much longer. When they do, they'll get little or no sympathy from the majority of unaffected people who have already suffered. That's how salami slicing works.

Oh, throughout this process, unlimited funds will be found to be shovelled towards banks, money will be no object when required to bomb lands far away and it will be as readily available for growing our already enormous surveillance society.

I have been saying this for years. If another party gets in(not much else to choose from is there?)it probably will be Labour, the way I put it is that, Labour will say you cannot blame us for these policies but as they are law, we'll just leave them in place.

Your post just about sums up politics in the UK but its not helped by the media always finding the odd exception that gets the population's back up and gives the politicians more fuel to sproute often ill informed opinions and views/spin. For most who work, wages are too low and still need topping up so you are still on welfare. How about a "Living wage"

Seven out of eight who claim HB are working. The fact they still have to claim shows how poor wages are.

We're in hard times so more people are struggling to stay in work or find it. Many who criticise those on benefit have never had to try and claim it or really know what life is like when on it, it's not fun, you do have to be thrifty and frugal. And you do have to jump through many hoops to get what you are entitled to, you don't get something for nothing.

And now they are going after more than who they call the scroungers but the genuinely ill(there's something wrong when being assesed that you are not allowed to take evidence from your consultant and Dr)

It goes much further than talking of HB. Bedroom Tax, reductions in help given regarding CT and so it goes on and on...

There is probably as much truth in the final paragraph of Bob's post, there will always be money found for favourite policies...

Popperwell

minx66 wrote: »

.
What about, instead of all the different benefits it should be replaced by one simple benefit in line with the minimum wage. Give one benefit equal to a 39 hour working week on minimum wage, then let these people receiving it pay their own rent, council tax and other bills like the rest of us have to. A person working 39 hours a week on a minimum wage should NOT be worse off than a person on benefits.

The trouble is that many jobs don't pay enough and the minimum wage isn't a living wage often still requiring it to be topped up by the State.

Often those working are struggling and what they say about work paying better than benefits may mean a couple of quid but once prices rise, the cost of traveling to work and I am sure you can think of other ways income can be reduced, you'll be struggling again, either having to apply for help or trying to cut back on your living standards.

Its bad for everyone...

minx66

Yes, I do agree with you and there should be a top up from the state to help working people on low wages, more than a few quid, people who are prepared to help them selves deserve help. Its the ones who won't get off their backsides to do anything and are still better off that I object to.

MissMoneypenny

Popperwell wrote: »

I have been saying this for years. If another party gets in(not much else to choose from is there?)it probably will be Labour, the way I put it is that, Labour will say you cannot blame us for these policies but as they are law, we'll just leave them in place.

And lets not forget that it was Labour that started the medicals with ATOS.

Popperwell wrote: »

Seven out of eight who claim HB are working. The fact they still have to claim shows how poor wages are.

And how high the rents are.

Rents that went up when Labour brought in LHA and landlords raised their rents to this level. Blair bought BTLs too.

As Labour forced rents up with HB/LHA , this governent are using that same power to reduce the rents. To try to increase wages, they are trying to reduce demand and have already closed the many 'not skilled at anything much' immigration visas that New Labour invented; to import more Labour voters.

They also forced through the vote to lose free university education in England and Wales, by using the Scottish MPs, who stayed behind on a Friday to vote in favour of this, when they usually went home early on a Friday.

Never has a party sh@t on it's own voters as much as Labour did; and the amazing thing was that people kept voting for them!

dark_lady

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

(Not all directed purely at you patchwork cat)

As usual, threads like theses on difficult subjects will be full of people slagging off the ideas with "what about......"

Silvercar quite rightly stated that there will and should be exceptions i.e. where parents are deceased etc....

Anyone commenting on the ideas shouldn't do so without having read the finer detail..... That's the problem, people will form an opinion without realising that the changes won't affect them, or will actually improve their situation possibly.

Cameron's comment rings far too true...

"If you are a single parent living outside London, if you have four children and you're renting a house on housing benefit, then you can claim almost £25,000 a year,"

My brother and his wife have four kids and earn more per year than my wife earned working part time.... :eek: My wife and I have just had a baby and will qualify for no benefits (which is fine, I don't expect people to pay for my child) but if my wife returns to work, not only will my brother and his wife earn more in benefits than she earns working full time, but we will also lose half my wifes wages in childcare too AND miss out on spending quality time with our child...

Surely you will lose some of your wages in childcare too. Not just half your wifes wages. I take it you had a hand in conceiving these children. Why do i keep seeing posts where people think paying for all the childcare should come out of the females wages.

little_miss_spender

I just wish that Mr Cameron and his cronies would actually live in the real world literally step into the shoes and get a hands on experience of what life is like living on benefits. Then after he has done this for a good few months then come back to his welfare reform bill with the experience of living and surviving on benefits so he can truthfully say he knows what it is like, then the people of this country just may have some belief in him and other politicians instead of them coming across as condescending patronising tw-ts. Who havent got a bloody clue what they are banging on about.

chris1973

The trouble is that many jobs don't pay enough and the minimum wage isn't a living wage often still requiring it to be topped up by the State.

What about those working on Minimum wage, whose employers have no company sick pay and have been taken ill / had an accident and only get SSP for three or four months duration whilst they recover?

I'd love to see how some of those whinging about this benefit being reduced whilst, at the same time, still having five or six other benefits filling their bank account, manage on £85.85 per week with no other entitlement or help paying housing / CT etc

Thats £85.85 a week, with nothing else - no council tax benefit, no income support, no ESA, no housing benefit, just one single payment to live off and pay your bills, rent etc.

Thats what you can look forward to if you chose to work, and fall ill / have an accident where you cannot work for a few months through no fault of your own

I wouldn't mind, but SSP isn't even a state benefit as such, as its paid back from the employees N.I payments, which in my case amount to over 20 years worth, so i'm only getting back a small percentage of their return, which doesn't even meet the rent outgoings.

I imagine that those worried about this benefit or that benefit being reduced still get more than £85.85 per week from various other sources, even if its only your rent or council tax getting paid - so be thankful for what you currently have and be careful what you wish for.