MSE News: Benefits 'may be linked to pay, not inflation'

MissMoneypenny

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

Even if this was true, which I doubt, are you suggesting that benefit is paid directly to the child?

No, or else those type of parents would still steal their child's money. They are talking about vouchers and schemes that would directly benefit the child themselves and would bypass the parents i.e clubs that provide hot meals and providing clean clothes.

Did you miss the report from Save the Children that said some children in the UK were not being given basic things from their parents such as a regular hot meal and new shoes? All that welfare being given to the parents for their child and some children still weren't getting their welfare money.

[Deleted User]

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Fair enough. People on NMW often don't have a rise every year (unless the NMW is increased). Don't see why it should be any different for those on benefits.

I think NMW has increased every year since labour introduced it,although this govt has kept the increases low,and people on benefits dont have the option of working OT or finding a better paid job

MissMoneypenny

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

Even if this was true, which I doubt, are you suggesting that benefit is paid directly to the child?

No, or else those type of parents would still steal their child's money. They are talking about vouchers and schemes that would directly benefit the child themselves and would bypass the parents i.e clubs that provide hot meals and providing clean clothes.

Did you miss the report from Save the Children that said some children in the UK were not being given basic things from their parents such as a regular hot meal and new shoes? All that welfare being given to the parents for their child and some children still weren't getting their welfare money.

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

It has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which is breaking the link between benefits and CPI.

Now don't be silly. These changes are all to do with being fairer to the taxpayer. We need the taxpayers to pay off our 1 trillion debt. Cutting welfare payments such as these proposals will do and forcing the able bodied Entitled To class back to work, are all part of paying off the massive national debt.

As I said before, with their own welfare payments being reduced in real terms and no chance to nick their childrens money; benefits won't look like such an attractive lifestyle choice for the able bodied.

Cpt.Scarlet

There are 2.5m unemployed in the UK, and a very optimistic 500,000 jobs available, so when all of those have been taken up, what do the remaining 2,000,000 do?

I don't see any element of choice in this for the majority of those unable to find a job.

As to the idea of vouchers, where is the infrastructure to support this, where is the money going to come from for these "clubs".

Of course child poverty in the UK is an issue and an increasing one, but it isn't going to be solved by sound bites and it isn't going to be fixed by making these families even more poorer than they currently are.

seven-day-weekend

woodbine wrote: »

......people on benefits dont have the option of working OT or finding a better paid job

Neither do some people on NMW. The carers, the cleaners, the caterers, all the people we would miss if no-one did the job.

Gordon_the_Moron

I'm a Conservative voter and think this is a truly appalling idea!

Benefits should be just enough to live on, they're there to help people survive, not live in luxury, if they are just enough to get by on, as they should be then they need to rise with inflation or they will not be enough to survive on.

northerntwo1

It needs to be a mindset change not just financial, the serial benefit claimers have zero intention of changing, cutting benefits will mean more crime, more lone parents and more instances of things like domestic violence. I DO believe the benefits paid to disabled and those with children are above the minimum needed to survive but if anyone can survive on JSA if under 25 I'd love to hear how.

The government also needs to invest not just cut there need to be more opportunities and a carrot with the stick in my opinion.

Why do pensioners need double the benefits of their single counterparts in addition to other items (heating). This seems extortionate to me and some have not paid one penny into that fund. This is an area to look at. Bring the state pension to basic levels, those who have worked can top up with savings/private pension and have the retirement they deserve as opposed to 50 years of retirement and doing nothing.

rogerblack

ILW wrote: »

Food vouchers are the way to go. For a set amount of healthy food for each family member.
Cannot be used for McD or fags and a criminal offence to sell them or buy them.

So, put aside some fraction of the small amount of JSA for healthy food.

Now, if you are already requiring this claimant to subsidise his rent, because he's got a spare room (never mind that it's not actually spare, or there is nowhere to move to appropriate), they now can't economise on food?

So, instead of finding the 14 pounds to subsidise their rent out of the 71/week, they now have to find it out of 51/week?

Oh - and because it's the political whim this week, bad news, it's 65 pounds in a couple of years time.

working

Morlock wrote: »

What a great motivation for government to encourage businesses to keep wages low. Don't raise wages because the benefits bill will increase, yet all of the ignorant sheep bleat "Yes, great idea, at last." Stupid, stupid people.

Are people going to pay more for products and services if businesses raise wages in line with inflation?

Really?

For too long now benefits rates have increased more than the NMW. This is simply not fair to low-paid workers.

Midnighter

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

There are 2.5m unemployed in the UK, and a very optimistic 500,000 jobs available, so when all of those have been taken up, what do the remaining 2,000,000 do?

That's assuming you believe the stats. If you factor in the sick and disabled, who according to the Con-Dems are mostly fit to return to work, and other 'economically inactive' groups it's much higher.