MSE News: MPs vote to limit benefit rises to 1%

"A key vote to decide whether the annual increase in most benefits will be capped at 1% until 2016 will take place today..."
«13456736

Replies

  • miduckmiduck Forumite
    1.8K Posts
    ✭✭✭
    Should that not be "MPs to vote whether to limit benefit rises"? The heading implies the vote has already happened.
  • Gordon_the_MoronGordon_the_Moron Forumite
    1.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    That's what I thought too.

    My comment as a Conservative voter (voter NOT supporter, I just think they're less bad than Labour)

    Are benefits a safety net providing enough to live on for those in need of them or do they pay people more than enough to cover the basics and to be able to afford luxuries?

    If they are just enough to live on, will capping them below inflation not put people below the breadline?

    If they are more than enough to live on, why are they not being cut?
    If you don't like what I say slap me around with a large trout and PM me to tell me why.

    If you do like it please hit the thanks button.
  • MeadowsMeadows Forumite
    4.5K Posts
    Mortgage-free Glee! Hung up my suit! Xmas Saver!
    When people in work have had little or no pay rises for up to 5 years is it really fair that those on benefits (for what ever reasons) should have an annual increase.
    Everything has its beauty but not everyone sees it.
  • ~Brock~~Brock~ Forumite
    1.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    Shadow chancellor Ed Balls says: "While millionaires get a tax cut, seven million striving working families are paying the price for David Cameron and George Osborne's economic failure."

    How the hell can a clown like Ed Balls come up with a reply like that and keep a straight face? The state of denial within Labour over the financial state their own party left this country in is still breathtaking.....
  • miduckmiduck Forumite
    1.8K Posts
    ✭✭✭
    That's what I thought too.

    My comment as a Conservative voter (voter NOT supporter, I just think they're less bad than Labour)

    Are benefits a safety net providing enough to live on for those in need of them or do they pay people more than enough to cover the basics and to be able to afford luxuries?

    If they are just enough to live on, will capping them below inflation not put people below the breadline?

    If they are more than enough to live on, why are they not being cut?

    I was going to thank you, as I do agree with your points, but sorry, I can't thank a Conservative voter. ;)

    In many cases benefits provide for more than a basic standard of living, but in this case (JSA in particular) those affected will only have a minimal standard of living in the first place. Interesting quote from Sarah Teather, "Percentages do not matter. They do not buy bread and milk. It is pounds and pence that count". A 1% increase amounts to a 71p increase per week, so little more than a loaf of (value) bread. :o
  • miduckmiduck Forumite
    1.8K Posts
    ✭✭✭
    ~Brock~ wrote: »
    Shadow chancellor Ed Balls says: "While millionaires get a tax cut, seven million striving working families are paying the price for David Cameron and George Osborne's economic failure."

    How the hell can a clown like Ed Balls come up with a reply like that and keep a straight face? The state of denial within Labour over the financial state their own party left this country in is still breathtaking.....

    This is not about point scoring against the other party, both are as bad as each other for doing that. This is about those on the absolute lowest of incomes, and giving them sufficient to survive.
  • I worry that these measure will increase child poverty something which polititians have claimed to want to reduce.
    No 314 in "This Will Be Mine In 2009"
    Beginning my first full year of comping so hoping to follow in the footsteps of all the previous lucky winners on here!:rolleyes:
  • bloolagoonbloolagoon Forumite
    8K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    I worry that these measure will increase child poverty something which polititians have claimed to want to reduce.

    Child related benefits are more generous than others . The rate for the first child alone isn't too far off what a young couple would have to survive and pay bills on.
    Tomorrow is the most important thing in life
  • I worry that these measure will increase child poverty something which polititians have claimed to want to reduce.
    If you have a child, or indeed children, compared to a single person on JSA, the claimant is positively rolling in it, no matter how people try to spin that they aren't.;)
  • SandraScarlettSandraScarlett Forumite
    4.1K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    Meadows wrote: »
    When people in work have had little or no pay rises for up to 5 years is it really fair that those on benefits (for what ever reasons) should have an annual increase.

    My SIL hasn't had a pay rise for over 3 years, and his overtime has been cut, in order to save the jobs they have. His cousin, meanwhile, had over 5% increase in his benefits last year and is complaining about the 1% increase this April.

    My SIL would love a 1% guaranteed increase each year. It may not be a lot, but it sure beats nothing.

    xx
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides