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

guilds

Gentile wrote: »

Are you for real ? Tesco making billions in profits does not mean it does not pay fair wages. They have various kinds of staff. Buyers, IT, Management, customer service. They are paid fairly and market rates. They pay check out staff and other unskilled workers the market rate too, which is minimum wage. What is wrong ? If the government ( Labour ) decided for some reason to hand out tax credits and what not why is it Tesco problem ? APPLE make billions in profit, are you suggesting they dont pay fair wages ?

Mind boggles. But that is what the Labour government has done in the past decade, brain wash an entire generation.

Gentile I am talking about low to semi skilled workers, and before you mention should have tried harder we are not all blessed with the educational capacity to become a high flyer, do you not think Taxpayers and the government should question why so many people in employment need benefits. If people were paid a true living wage they would not need to rely on benefits. But paying a true living wage would mean cutting down profits for the shareholders and the fat cats at the top who avoid tax.

CharlieBilly

Many people have lost there jobs as a result of global banking crises this was brought on by greed by the banks and fat bonuses and lending money out to people through complicated mechanisms which were sold and resold so bankers got there commission. The failure was on a inept banking regulations

For many years benefits rose with inflation even when at times wage rises were above inflation. Now tables turned and they want to cut benefits in real terms.

Not all of us claim huge amounts and lets be honest for many its a subsistence. Dont believe all the Daily Mail hype about all of us on hundreds a week and enjoying life of Riley, the reality is some what different for the majority

ILW wrote: »

Some would say that the level of benefits being paid is part of the problem. So claimants are indirectly responsible for the state we are in.

Spending more than than the tax take for year after year has to cause a problem in the end.

dori2o

CharlieBilly wrote: »

Nice to see they now breaking the link between inflation and benefits rises NOT. Okay country is in a mess but its not those on benefits that caused this, and who decides its 1% rise do all public sector workers only get 1%. 1% rise if you get £400 is £4 but if you only get £100 a week benefits you now get £1 but I may still have similar bills to pay and they going up a lot like food, energy. So of inflation does leap up we are even worse state

Unfortunately the uneducated in this country have fallen for the Governments propaganda and are too stupid to see the truth, that the richest in this country and worldwide caused the economic crisis, not the poorest, the sick, the disabled or the unemployed. They are merely easy targets.

There are many people in this country who, because of the inequalities and pressure put on Governments from those with the ability to influence, are working 40/50/60 hours a week and yet still require their salaries to be subsidised by the Government, allowing the big corporations to generate larger and larger profits at the taxpayers expense.

The benefit cap affects more hardworking people than it does non-working.

The cap on public sector salaries is supposed to be 1% across the board. Therefore what should happen is those on the lowest incomes get a larger %age increase than those on higher incomes. It won't happen though, it will be implemented as a flat 1% increase. The end result is that our salaries, in real terms have reduced by some 12% in the past 3 years.

The uneducated will argue that the public sector get annual cost of living increases, but the FACT is the majority do not get such payments. Less than 30% of all public sector workers have these provisions as contractual rights.

There's a simple and effective way to reduce the amounts of money spent on public sector and welfare.

1, Reduce the number of MP's, MP's salaries and restrict the maximum amount they can claim in expenses.

2, Increase the NMW, The more a person earns the less they need subsidising by the state.

3, The Government should stop focussing all of its energies on how it can best destroy the lives of those who need the most help and focus on generating growth to the rest of the economy. Something they promised would happen before the next election, but which they have so far failed to achieve anything.

Generate growth, growth means more jobs, more jobs means less unemployment, less unemployment means a lower welfare bill.

Finally, close the borders. Close them to EU and Non-EU individuals and tell Brussels to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Just as we should not be paying benefits to people who do not live permenently in the UK, neither should we be providing them with jobs whilst there are upto 8M people inactive in this country.

shedboy94

DeeDee74 wrote: »

Your talking of people with6 kids plus having disabilitys thats not the normal income for households plus hb and ct is means tested so come back with proper family income on benefits !!!!

What is a "proper family"?

CharlieBilly

dori2o you are correct. They have used spin has this government to justify cuts and pitched people who are working against non workers but often is the case many workers are facing cuts too as they rely on some benefits to make ends meet.

dori2o

ILW wrote: »

Some would say that the level of benefits being paid is part of the problem. So claimants are indirectly responsible for the state we are in.

Spending more than than the tax take for year after year has to cause a problem in the end.

Then in which case it is time to stop providing free labour to multimillion pound/multinational companies. Where is the incentive for businesses to employ people when the Government will give them the labour they need for free via workfare? For every workfare position provided to a company, it is potentially 2 paid jobs not provided to the unemployed.

It is also time to increase the NMW to such a level that a full time employee would not qualify for such benefits.

This is the problem with the gullible/uneducated who believe every word that comes from the DM or the Tories, they don't want anyone to receive benefits, but at the same time neither will they accept that in order for many people who do work, who are not scroungers, who work just as hard if not harder than those earning vast sums of money, in order for them to live a life of the minimum standard they need to have more cash available to them from their employment.

The only other way to do it is to increase the tax free allowance, take those who earn £15k or less out of tax completely. However, that does nothing for those who can only work part-time or whose income is already below the tax free allowance.

Those who are not affected by changes to benefits want their cake, and everyone elses too.

They refuse to accept that people need benefits, they demand that benefits are stopped, they demand that people live without any quality of life if they dare to claim a benefit due to the low pay they receive, yet they complain at every option available to break the cycle, such as increasing the NMW, or giving extra tax relief.

To them anyone on NMW is a failure and does not deserve to live in their world.

SandraScarlett

shedboy94 wrote: »

Why are disabled people being hit harder?

They're not. Both DLA and SRP are increasing by 2.5% in April. DLA is changing to PIP, but if you are correctly claiming for your disabilities, I don't see why this is a problem.

xx

clemmatis

SandraScarlett wrote: »

They're not. Both DLA and SRP are increasing by 2.5% in April.

Disability charities say disabled people are being hit harder -- but I haven't checked that out.

DLA is changing to PIP, but if you are correctly claiming for your disabilities, I don't see why this is a problem.

Problem 1. There will be no Low Rate Care element of PIP. That does not mean people who currently get LRC DLA (because they are claiming for it "correctly" i.e. because they qualify fully for it) will get Standard Rate Care PIP instead. Some, who should have been getting Medium Rate Care DLA, probably will get PIP. Many will get nothing. The Low Rate Care benefit is being abolished.

Problem 2. PIP's descriptors are different. PIP has (I believe) been made harder to get (this is in addition to the abolition of LRC) for people claiming "correctly" i.e. people who qualify fully for DLA now.

Problem 3. The government has already decided PIP must cost 20% less than DLA even though its own, research-based, estimate of DLA fraud is 0.5%.

Your point would be reasonable if, as would have been possible and probably, less expensive, DLA had been retained but more claimants had been re-assessed, more frequently.

See for example

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/06/boris-johnson-attacks-disability-payments-cuts

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielknowles/100127807/boris-johnson-turns-his-fire-on-the-governments-reforms-to-disability-living-allowance/

dori2o

SandraScarlett wrote: »

They're not. Both DLA and SRP are increasing by 2.5% in April. DLA is changing to PIP, but if you are correctly claiming for your disabilities, I don't see why this is a problem.

xx

It shouldn't be a problem, but with ATOS doing the assessments and the goalposts having been significantly changed, there will be amny people who are genuinely disabled, who struggle to live day to day, who will not be eligible for the benefit.

That itself is bad enough, but as DLA is currently used as the benchmark for a person being 'Registered Disabled', then for many it will mean more than simoply losing state help, it could also mean a lot of other help that is provided would be removed as according to those who offer these systems of help, you are not disabled if you don't receive DLA/PIP.

For example, I get a parking bay under the building I work in as I receive DLA and so therefore I am 'registered disabled'.

If I am refused PIP, despite the fact my condition is significantly worse now than before, but because I can use a wheel chair and self propel for a short distance, I will no longer be entitled to that space, meaning I will not be in a position anymore to work where I do as I cannot get there.

There are severe penalties coming to some people who are disabled in everyones eyes but the Governments and ATOS.

emweaver

shedboy94 wrote: »

I disagree with this and I have children.
If you have 1 child and your bills are X, you can have a 2nd child and receive approx £70 extra a week. Now I'm sorry but I don't see how your utility bills will increase any, and you won't be spending £70 a week on additional food and clothing.

Extra washing for one increases your electricty costs.

Also extra food, you need to clothe and extra person, now 2 kids to buy for at xmas, 2 birthdays a year, 2 lots of school uniforms.During the 2nd childs first year is the most expensive when they are outgrowing clothes every 3 months, then theres nappys etc.

Fact is most of the benefits that are affected are going to working people and working families so you will be affected.