MSE News: George Osborne to make £10bn welfare cuts

poppasmurf_bewdley

MUMZ2BEE wrote: »

I too know of a woman who is claiming income support, and gets full housing and council tax benefit, and has 2 children.

I have reported her to benefit fraud on 4 occassions now as she has a partner who works full time living with her rent free!!

Benefit Fraud are a joke as they haven't done nothing about her!!

Your last sentence implies that the Benefit Fraud team HAVE done something about this woman - ie "haven't done nothing" means "have done something"!

How do you know that nothing has been done? She could be being investigated at this very moment, or the Department could have investigated and are waiting for a warrant to be issued.

As for 'doing nothing', have you complained to your MP about any supposed inaction? Surely, if you are convinced the woman is a fraud, and nothing is being done, a trip to your MP's local surgery to have a word with him is the least you could do? Most MP's hold a surgery on Friday evenings or Saturday mornings. Even local councillors hold them too, at places like libraries and other civic buildings.

Dunroamin

Marisco wrote: »

I am in favour of limiting ALL child related benefits to 2 kids. But of course this cannot be retrospective, you'd have to choose a date, and say 10 months from xx xx 2013 (or whenever) all child benefits will not be paid for any over 2 kids. That way everyone knows the score, and if anyone wants more children, then they know that they'll have to pay for them from what they already get.

I think the same should apply to HB, that from xx xx 2013, only a shared rate will be paid to under 35's. I don't think it's fair to spring it on people who might have been living in their own place (on their own) for years. What about the 32 year old who has been working since say, 20, then lose their jobs, and cannot find one straight away, or not one that pays enough to pay the rent? Should they have to move into shared accommodation?

It's like most Tory policies, appeals to certain sections of society, but not very well thought out. They never seem to "allow" for the law of unintended consequences!

I always agree with much of what you post but I really don't get this idea that living in shared accommodation is some kind of punishment.

Cerisa

Princess: I know that - and I agree with you. It's why I dislike ATOS so much.

Blanket, general assessments will mess things up in ways that are unconscionable.

Marisco

Dunroamin wrote: »

I always agree with much of what you post but I really don't get this idea that living in shared accommodation is some kind of punishment.

TBH I'm probably looking at this from my own "narrow" perspective, and not looking at the "big picture". I would loath and detest having to share a bathroom/kitchen with strangers. Maybe I'd think differently if I'd done it, but I never went away to uni, I got married, from home, when I was 19, so have never shared with strangers.

It would (IMO) be even worse if you'd been in your own place for years, then find after maybe 10 + years you suddenly have to house share!! :eek: Plus as I said in my post, my "stuff" would not fit into a room (I've been in my flat for 10 years come May) Would folk be expected to get rid of their gear?

I don't think it would be too bad if you go into a house share after sharing at uni, or never had your own place to begin with, you wouldn't have accumulated furniture and things that make a flat/house liveable in. But to house share after living on your own for years, would be my idea of a living hell. Which is why I said to leave people who have their own place alone, and introduce it to "new" people iyswim.

The idea that "kids" can just move back to their parents, is IMO, a non starter. For example (although both my kids are way beyond the age frame) my daughter lives in Wales, my son down south and I live in a one bed flat. What would happen then (assuming they were of the age and lost their jobs) would I have to move to take them in, or would they have to move up here to live with me, although I have no room?

The whole idea hasn't been thought out properly, and as someone said, with all the exemptions that they'll have to make, to avoid mass homelessness, it won't save that much anyway!! There are far more things they can do before this to save a few quid! But it panders to certain sections, which is what the Tories are good at doing!

PaulF81

Labour do exactly the same. They pander to the types that are happy to have their votes bought with cash that our grandchildren will be paying down their entire lives.

Dunroamin

Marisco wrote: »

TBH I'm probably looking at this from my own "narrow" perspective, and not looking at the "big picture". I would loath and detest having to share a bathroom/kitchen with strangers. Maybe I'd think differently if I'd done it, but I never went away to uni, I got married, from home, when I was 19, so have never shared with strangers.

It would (IMO) be even worse if you'd been in your own place for years, then find after maybe 10 + years you suddenly have to house share!! :eek: Plus as I said in my post, my "stuff" would not fit into a room (I've been in my flat for 10 years come May) Would folk be expected to get rid of their gear?

I don't think it would be too bad if you go into a house share after sharing at uni, or never had your own place to begin with, you wouldn't have accumulated furniture and things that make a flat/house liveable in. But to house share after living on your own for years, would be my idea of a living hell. Which is why I said to leave people who have their own place alone, and introduce it to "new" people iyswim.

I'm sure you're right that one's perceptions are down to experience but I don't think that's a good enough reason for making policy around it. I can see it might be a bit of a shock to people who've got used to having unrealistic expectations but it wouldn't take long for it to become accepted.

Don't forget also that taking in a lodger was the norm in hard times for our parents' generation, long before flat sharing became common for ours.

KxMx

Yeah it would suck if you had your own place then had to share.

But when you are claiming any kind of benefits you have to abide by the Governments rules, fair or unfair.

clemmatis

Dunroamin wrote: »

I'm sure you're right that one's perceptions are down to experience but I don't think that's a good enough reason for making policy around it.

Sure he's right. And the people who formulate such policies often rely on their own experience, make policy around their privileged experience. Not good enough reason? Damn right.

Marisco

KxMx wrote: »

Yeah it would suck if you had your own place then had to share.

But when you are claiming any kind of benefits you have to abide by the Governments rules, fair or unfair.

I'm not saying that youngsters shouldn't have to house share, just that it's a bit unfair doings so after maybe years of being in their own place. It shouldn't be applied retrospectively. Someone could have had a flat for years and working, then all of a sudden lose their jobs, and in the current jobs climate, find it hard to get another quickly. Meantime the rent still needs paying. Do you really think it's fair for someone in those circumstances have to move into a flat/house share?

Ellejmorgan

MUMZ2BEE wrote: »

I too know of a woman who is claiming income support, and gets full housing and council tax benefit, and has 2 children.

I have reported her to benefit fraud on 4 occassions now as she has a partner who works full time living with her rent free!!

Benefit Fraud are a joke as they haven't done nothing about her!!

This is the very type of person that gives genuine claimants a bad name..

I'm a lone parent on benefits, but poor health stops me working, I think there are two types of claimants, the ones that are honest and would change things if they could, the other type are the ones that are out on the lash and break the rules, and never want to come off benefit..

It's a shame the genuine ones get grief even if they want to change their situation