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

princessdon

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

Is that loophole being stopped wit Universal credit?

I don't know - but when people "take an income of" exactly £601 pm (not earnt - they admitted they earnt more) to gain maximum benefits including Housing Benefit it surely must.

There is the "other thread on here" - where their business makes a "loss" and can be "offset against PAYE earnings" to maximise Tax Credits and it seems they will lose this under UC, but not sure on the first situation.

DaisyFlower

princessdon wrote: »

Look at thread currently just above this one!

Takes min wage (just the right amount) - owns a £16,000 BMW, has a 4 bed house (because he/she needs 2 rooms for business) and gets full benefits.

They want more money - ergo other half to work, but only if they get more benefits. Oh and more children for us to support, and his wife can't get an evening job because they are tired.

Seriously - how can anyone say the benefit system isn't screwed after reading that, when families like myself (and many others) work all day then need to do housework, get no help and pay for the likes of that one?

I was reading that thread and shocked by how much is paid out to those on tax credits either taking little from profits as self employed, byworking the bare min 16 hours or letting other tax payers pay for one parent to stay home. The sooner tax credits are shown the door the better.

I'd love to see more benefits made contributions based. No child related benefits so people only have children that they can afford (the numbers born to teens and in short term relationships would soon drop). Min 35 hours of work per adult in the household before any top up benefits and hb reduced to stop people living in areas they cannot afford themseves or larger houses than their salary stretches too.

Lets take it back to being a safety net that supports those truly unable to work due to physical disabilities rather than as a lifestyle choice as it is for lots now. Those that do the right thing and self support dont get a payrise if they increase their family and only 9 months SMP as opposed to lots of years on IS.

System

I have to admit, im currently waiting back to hear about a part time job, my psych doesn't want me going straight into full time work as she fears it could trigger a relapse but will suport me with starting out part time and working up. Tax credits in this instance will be additional support (im hoping if i can work for 6 months-a year ok i'll be alright to look for fulll time work). I'm pretty sure that even with tax credits i'll get less than i do now but i just want to get back into work.

princessdon

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

I have to admit, im currently waiting back to hear about a part time job, my psych doesn't want me going straight into full time work as she fears it could trigger a relapse but will suport me with starting out part time and working up. Tax credits in this instance will be additional support (im hoping if i can work for 6 months-a year ok i'll be alright to look for fulll time work). I'm pretty sure that even with tax credits i'll get less than i do now but i just want to get back into work.

I think most people know there are some really good reasons why tax credits exist and I'd say that falls into it

Then you get others that take the pee

mazza111

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

I have to admit, im currently waiting back to hear about a part time job, my psych doesn't want me going straight into full time work as she fears it could trigger a relapse but will suport me with starting out part time and working up. Tax credits in this instance will be additional support (im hoping if i can work for 6 months-a year ok i'll be alright to look for fulll time work). I'm pretty sure that even with tax credits i'll get less than i do now but i just want to get back into work.

When i was with RM I was only contracted to 24 hrs a week, although usually made it up, I was still better off working, but that was having one child at home. Sorry, don't know your circumstances. But hope the info helps

PD I agree with you totally, but no matter what the benefits system is, you're always going to get someone abuse it. Then because of them, the rest of us who rely on benefits are getting the bad name.

I don't think anyone denies these kinds of instances really need looking into.

mazza111

DaisyFlower wrote: »

I was reading that thread and shocked by how much is paid out to those on tax credits either taking little from profits as self employed, byworking the bare min 16 hours or letting other tax payers pay for one parent to stay home. The sooner tax credits are shown the door the better.

I'd love to see more benefits made contributions based. No child related benefits so people only have children that they can afford (the numbers born to teens and in short term relationships would soon drop). Min 35 hours of work per adult in the household before any top up benefits and hb reduced to stop people living in areas they cannot afford themseves or larger houses than their salary stretches too.

Lets take it back to being a safety net that supports those truly unable to work due to physical disabilities rather than as a lifestyle choice as it is for lots now. Those that do the right thing and self support dont get a payrise if they increase their family and only 9 months SMP as opposed to lots of years on IS.

I didn't see the thread, so I really can't comment on it. I don't think no child related benefits is going to be viable in all honesty. How many women do you know that are fleeing domestic violence for example, and are single parents that way, I'm not a single parent through choice. Turned out he was a right to$$er. And I was too stupid to see it, until 16 years later. Don't get me wrong, I've always worked to support my kids, up until recently when I'm no longer able. I could definitely afford my kids when I had them and had no idea that things were going to take the turn that they did. Would it be wiser to stick in an abusive relationship because no benefits were paid to those single mum's who have kids. But then, I'm pretty sure most people think they can afford kids when they have them, apart from those ones who are deliberately fleece the system.

PaulF81

mazza111 wrote: »

I didn't see the thread, so I really can't comment on it. I don't think no child related benefits is going to be viable in all honesty. How many women do you know that are fleeing domestic violence for example, and are single parents that way, I'm not a single parent through choice. Turned out he was a right to$$er. And I was too stupid to see it, until 16 years later. Don't get me wrong, I've always worked to support my kids, up until recently when I'm no longer able. I could definitely afford my kids when I had them and had no idea that things were going to take the turn that they did. Would it be wiser to stick in an abusive relationship because no benefits were paid to those single mum's who have kids. But then, I'm pretty sure most people think they can afford kids when they have them, apart from those ones who are deliberately fleece the system.

There are charities like shelter that could fill the gap.

mazza111

Charities are already filling the gap, but where to the charities get their money from.........

mazza111

Not strictly true Topaziem. Doesn't that premium get lost is someone claims carers allowance for the person in receipt of DLA. The premium is only applied to income support afaik.

I do agree at times that sometime caring for each other is a bit iffy in all honesty. But it could be anything as simple as getting one out of bed, the other cooking breakfast, urging or helping one with medication etc. Would be quite easy making up 35 hours of care, depending of course on their own disability.

Not saying that bit of it's right btw, and it is one bit I'd change in all honesty.

Tottyshouse

mazza111 wrote: »

Not strictly true Topaziem. Doesn't that premium get lost is someone claims carers allowance for the person in receipt of DLA. The premium is only applied to income support afaik.

I do agree at times that sometime caring for each other is a bit iffy in all honesty. But it could be anything as simple as getting one out of bed, the other cooking breakfast, urging or helping one with medication etc. Would be quite easy making up 35 hours of care, depending of course on their own disability.

Not saying that bit of it's right btw, and it is one bit I'd change in all honesty.

I find it bizarre though that getting your husband of say 40 years out of bed - or making your wife of the same duration breakfast can be considered "care" that requires payment. Isn't that what you do in a marriage or committed relationship? In sickness and in health and all that? My nana had severe angina so my granda did all of the "heavy" work around the house. My granda had a lot of falls before he died so my nana never left him alone. They would never have expected payment for their commitment to each other. Mind you both have been dead for 25 years now so maybe that "old school" way of thinking is dying out.