Help? Are benefits being capped at 3 children?

pink_princess

raven83 wrote: »

What if there isn't any work though and they apply for hundreds and hundreds and still don't get nothing? Should they punished?

How do you even encourage them to apply?

If we had 97% employment again, how do we help the people who feel that they are unemployable?

Sorry to qoute your points Raven. You talk sense. I just wish to push your points further.

*gem*

pink_princess wrote: »

How do you even encourage them to apply?

If we had 97% employment again, how do we help the people who feel that they are unemployable?

Sorry to qoute your points Raven. You talk sense. I just wish to push your points further.

Can I say that I have been applying for every job possible for the last 6 months as i'm due to come of IS next month and go on JSA. I feel totally unemployable. I don't have a qualification to my name. I used to work until just after my oldest son was born but that was years ago. I've had people laugh in my face whan i've gone to them to ask for work because of my lack of qualifications in todays job market which has left me depressed and on medication. I am going to college Sept and will struggle but it's what I need to do to get back into the jobs market and to be employable. I guess i'm trying to say that alot of people feel worthless because of the rejection and ot being able to get a job. I think training is the key to get people back to work but not at a struggle like I will be doing.

Dunroamin

woodbine wrote: »

with 100s applying for every half decent job they could have a long wait,the minimum the law says you need to live on is just that the minimum, and 3 into 2 wont go

The amount a low income family receive in CB/CTC per child is way over the amount needed to keep it, which is why it can be profitable to have more.

mikey_bach

Put a new born on to a claim Friday, I.S paying for the children was child number twelve, still payiing for ten.....
Parent on from 1990....
I dont know if a cap would work but it may deter.

princessdon

It should be capped at 3. Cb only after that's- so £13 pw. Families already with children will have housing etc - ctc are way too high per child - that is why families with an older child who can't now be claimed feel the drop.

Anyone working and not claiming benefits - inc ctc will have means to fall back on for a whle

mikey_bach

I find ironic I.S pays 64.99 for a dependant child whom lives at home with its parent till twenty if CHB remains in payment

But £56.25 if the young person is aged under eighteen estranged and lives on their own

WHY???

princessdon

mikey_bach wrote: »

I find ironic I.S pays 64.99 for a dependant child whom lives at home with its parent till twenty if CHB remains in payment

But £56.25 if the young person is aged under eighteen estranged and lives on their own

WHY???

No logic is there?

I'm harsh on "some" benefit claimants but pity the poor soul thrown out of home expected to feed and heat on £56 pw

gemma1979

I agree that there are people out there who abuse the benefits system but what about those who are on benefits not by choice?

For example, sick or disabled? Genuinely so rather than mongering?

Should they be treated as second class citizens through no culpable fault of their own? Tarred by a brush automatically because they are on benefits? Are they not entitled to a family like everyone else simply because they are disabled (or whatever)?

Again, those that had families and then got made redundant etc?

People are so quick to judge...as soon as they hear you are on benefits the benefit bashing begins...99% of the time without knowing the full story.

I get it all the time because I am on benefits because I have a disabled child. I am his full time carer 24 hours a day 7 days a week. It is harder work than any 'job' I have ever done previous to this. Yet I get 'working' people looking down their nose at me all the time. It really pees me off. It would be impossible for me to work at the moment. Maybe as he gets older I will be able to return to work full time or part time but at the present time it is not viable. In addition, childcare for him is virtually impossible to find for him due to his disability and how it affects him, people just cannot cope. He needs day and all night care. I have tried returning to work on a part time basis and his childcare provider couldn't cope, so then I had no childcare and as obviously I couldn't leave him on his own I had to cease employment and look after him again myself.

In addition to this, I have bipolar disorder myself, which I was diagnosed with at age 15 after being under a psychiatrist from the age of 13. This is known as early onset and occured long before working age and is recorded in my medical notes. Not that this is what stops me working as I worked from leaving university til my son was born (minus when I had episodes). The disorder only impacts on my working life when I have episodes. But I get a lot of sceptism about this off 'benefit bashers' because it is a mental disorder and as such cannot be 'seen' in the same way as a physical disability could.

Also, the current economic climate must be considered. In my area there are very few jobs available at the current time yet the number of unemployed people is very high. There are simply not enough jobs available for all the people. So, some, whether they like it or not, will remain unemployed. Someone who is actively seeking employment should not be penalised in the same way as one who is seeking to avoid it and wants to stay on benefits by choice.

I am not uneducated I have a law degree 2-1, yet many are uneducated with no training or qualifications.

Unfortunately, separating the genuine benefit claimants from the shirkers does not seem to be a possibility as so far the government has not found a mechanism to do this. So all are being treated alike with the fallout that some genuine claimants are being penalised due to the actions of the 'career claimants' by the government and society alike.

clearingout

pink_princess wrote: »

In defence of current policy, there is actually a 4 week grace.

You will continue to get your full support for 4 weeks to help you adjust. Again this is something that is hidden and not advertised as well as it should be IMHO.

the 4 week run on only kicks in if you come off benefits for paid work. You don't get the run on if you go to uni - I couldn't say what the rule is for college, but logic would suggest the same as uni.

[Deleted User]

Dunroamin wrote: »

The amount a low income family receive in CB/CTC per child is way over the amount needed to keep it, which is why it can be profitable to have more.

have you looked at the price of kids clothes and shoes recently?thats just for starters
but you still fail to explain what would happen to families who suddenly needed benefits as opposed to those who had been on them for some time,or are we going down the route of a 2 teir society again?
anyway i`m out of this thread now,it shouldnt even be on the benefits forum imho