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

Ddraig

Why is it every time I read one of these threads based on benefits it always criminalizes low income families?
"People on benefits" include families who also have a head of household working 40 hrs a week and are still made to hang their heads by condescending asses.
I am a mother of 4 children who are all clean, well kept, well fed, well educated. I do not smoke or go out and some of my clothes are older than my kids, I economize and pay everything I owe. Yet I am made to feel ashamed every time my husband reminds me that our tax credits are still benefits, so I then sit down and work out how much 40 hours on NMW would earn me and how much childcare I would need to pay as 30% of a weekly childcare bill from an average wage of £200 pw after tax. I always end up working out that I would be going to work for around £26 a week extra during school term and a I would be losing money to work during holidays. Not to mention all the hidden extras.
I suffer from depression that no, I do not claim benefits for because I would probably be so down by the time I had finished that I would likely finish myself off.
So what do I do? I keep worrying about being totally broke, panicking that if the car goes bump( which it has and is still playing up) that I have to figure out how to get my hubby to work because we are rural and don't have services to where he works. I make myself stressed and ill, I extend loans to the point they are higher than his wages before tax, lessening our disposable income even more, yet because of working hard before having children and buying our house, we get no mortgage paid for us and all maintenance is ours to pay( Boiler went and guttering was soaking the house walls, so £2300 between those last 2 years).
Oh yeah, my husband brings home just over £900 a month after tax, so no better off than those on full social care. We still have dignity and we are meant to have that stripped away from us as well as everything else?
When did the family unit become a target? I cook, clean and provide home cooked nutritiously balanced meals whilst my husband works, then I help my kids with homework which is why they are all exceptional students. So I ask where this figure of a debauched family unit where the kids go with out and the parents sit smoking and drinking and can't be bothered to help themselves comes from, because most families I know in this dead end, ex coal mining northern village are as decent and normal as my family!
By the way, has anyone else read of the fact tax evasion by loop holes such as the wealthy owner of Arcadia group cost this country £15 billion a year in loss of tax, whilst benefit fraud is at £1.1 million?
There is a nasty circle of attack in this country which tends to throw blame from one demographic to the other, whilst the Government carry on doing as they wish, leaving us fighting for scraps. I can't help but want to yawn when I see;
It's the immigrants!
Its the benefit mentality families!
It is the .....
Wake up people and stop attacking each other while the government get away with selling and privatizing everything to their chums!

chris_batchelor

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I think they are planning to get help direct to these children, to avoid those type of "parents" who nick their childs welfare money.

Less welfare to the parents; no chance to steal their kids welfare money - what will they do.........hmmm.......................work, perhaps?

This facile vindictive assumption that because some one has lost their job, in a recession caused by Tory supporting bankers, they stop loving their kids, and will start nicking their money, demeans you. What this lot are not just planning but are putting into force, is a massive attack on the living standards of the majority of us. They headline attacks on the very poorest [aka claimants] to distract the working poor. And you fall for it every time!

chris_batchelor

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.

I wonder if you've ever complained about the 'nanny state'?

chris_batchelor

working wrote: »

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.

What's not fair to low paid workers is their low pay. And because the rest of us pay taxes to subsidise these penny pinching employers, it's not fair on us either.

chris_batchelor

northerntwo1 wrote: »

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.

Well, that would certainly solve your perceived problem of pensioners drawing their state pension for 50 years - given the appalling performance of so much of the private pensions industry, the massive falls in annuity rates, and the negative [after inflation] savings rates, these 'lucky' pensioners would be trying to survive on the lowest state pension in western Europe. Of course I did read recently that a starvation diet means you live longer - or perhaps it just feels like it!

chris_batchelor

Gordon_the_Moron wrote: »

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.

I've thanked you for your post [there being more joy in Heaven over 1 sinner that repenteth] - but I'm wondering whether this is the only appalling Tory idea which you oppose, or if you are now considering your allegiance?

chris_batchelor

FBaby wrote: »

Considering the increasing number of threads we can read here highlighting that it is not beneficial for those on benefits to take a minimum wage job because they would be no better off, is there really a choice but to insure that the two are linked?

Yes there is another choice - pay a living wage. More money in the economy, more demand, more jobs - hey presto fewer people on benefits AND we stop subsidising employers who have no shame at paying people less than they need to live on.

chris_batchelor

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Let me ask the question to the nay-sayers then. Why should benefits rise faster than wages? (which is the situation this move is looking to prevent).

That was the workhouse principle - there had to be something worse than working and living in poverty [eg minimum wage] to keep the lower orders' noses to the grindstone. Good to see the Tories still favour Victorian values.

wozearly

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Let me ask the question to the nay-sayers then. Why should benefits rise faster than wages? (which is the situation this move is looking to prevent).

The 'naysayers' already answered the point a few times. Happy to sum up the argument, though;

The fundamental concept of the benefits system from JSA, pensions, disability benefit, child benefit, etc. was that we as a society were prepared to give an income to those who were unable to be self-sufficient. You could sum it up as those who not able to work, were considered 'too old' to be made to work, or were temporarily out of work. It later developed towards boosting the incomes of those who were working, but despite that would have still had an unacceptably low standard of living.

This is partly society showing a caring side and not wanting to have people ending up homeless and starving on the streets in large numbers, or turning to crime as they have no other options. Forcing people to have to rely on others, be that families or otherwise, is also a major burden to that individual and creates a potentially long-term financial strain on whoever is supporting them.

Assuming benefits are set at about the right level, they allow for a relatively low, but acceptable, standard of living. Uprating them in line with inflation, which tracks the cost of living, makes logical sense.

Also, in most 'normal' times, wage growth in the UK tends to be higher than inflation. Not in every individual's case, but its usually true for the majority of people. So for the majority of the time, a link to inflation is not only sensible, but more cost effective.

In recessions, the situation reverses. Wage growth tends to be lower than inflation, so it becomes politically attractive to link benefits to wages. But if benefits fall below the point of allowing an acceptable standard of living, it somewhat defeats the point of offering them in the first place.

The problem we have (IMO) is that over time the benefit income and low-to-average wages have got out of kilter.

The focus in the past has also been on means-testing on a primarily financial basis (because that's fairly easy), but once someone was given the OK for some form of benefit they would often get them consistently for a long time. Subsidised housing is one of the most striking examples of this.

This bizarre situation meant that the system has, in places, stopped working effectively. Governments have been attempting to fix bits of it in different ways for quite a while - but its very difficult to have a straightforward, low-cost, fraud-resistant system that works in the way you want it to without unintentionally clobbering people you didn't really mean to, or having harsh unintended consequences.

Changing uprating of benefit payments to wage growth in a recession is pure political point-scoring. If the system needs fixing, then by all means fix it. I think most people are grown up enough to know that it won't be an overnight, painless process...

But messing around the fringes with something that seems to make good sense at a glance just to get some populist sentiment behind an government making unpopular decisions is not something to applaud, or to encourage.

diamonds

Well if the long term sick & disabled are linked to a hourly wage for central paid DWP benefit's thats a great thing, lifts those in most need out of poverty & will reduce council/rent subsides & thus council tax .....oh no, wait thats not why central government are doing this....

This land is a mess because of MP's and always has been since the Empire stopped robbing "commonwealth" countries...