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

Meadows

SandraScarlett wrote: »

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

My point exactly.

KxMx

SandraScarlett wrote: »

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

But your SIL, has a chance, no matter how tough the market is, to get a better paying job.

Someone like myself on disability benefits and unable to work has not got that luxury. In my own situation I have 0 chance of getting better (believe me, it really is 0!)

Not all disability benefits are being excluded from the 1% cap as the Government would have you believe.

rogerblack

I am on disability benefits, and will be affected by this.

I have some sympathy with the argument about 'many working people don't get a raise'.
However.
The benefits are designed to be set at a subsistence level.
Every year, picking the lowest of inflation, wage rises, or whatever to increase them by is fundamentally flawed.
Pick one metric, and stick to it, rather than introducing what is in effect a 3% or so cut, that will not be made up in the future.
What are the chances of if the economy recovers, and wages rise again, the current government raising benefits by more than inflation?

dori2o

It makes me laugh when everyone goes on about how 'workers' have not had pay rises, and how people on benefits get this that and the other.

The fact is, this proposal is due to hit the pockets of 10M people directly. Of that 10M that will be directly affected 7M are 'workers', so not only are workers being hit by a lack of a payrise, but those who are on low incomes and therefore rely on benefits to bring their salaries to a liveable level, are being hit twice.

This however will have an indirect affect on many more people, from local authorities to landlords, market traders and small town shops to supermarkets, as the real terms cuts to the incomes of the lowest paid take their toll.

This move has the potential to throw the country back into another recession.

[Deleted User]

RuthMarianna wrote: »

I worry that these measure will increase child poverty something which polititians have claimed to want to reduce.

the coalition have NO such aim,labour and in particular gordon brown wanted to irradicate child poverty by 2020 and he was well on target to do so
as for the 1% increase for 3 years its obscene,it means that basic jsa in march 2016 will only be £75 a week,for under 25s it will be £52

Rotor

Good news for you woodbine
Child poverty has reduced under the coalition

jeanmd

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.

I think what needs to be taken into account is that only a small amount of benefits go on income support and job seekers allowance, the rest is in work benefits due to low wages and pensions etc. Most people will now agree that quite a number of people on job seekers are actively looking for work after loosing their jobs in the recession. The majority of people in work have had there wages cut or frozen and now will have real term cuts in benefit if this goes through. The condems have done a really good job at convincing people otherwise with their 'drawn curtains'

Data summary

UK benefit spending by the Department for Work & Pensions
Click heading to sort table. Download this data
AREA Type 2010-11, £bn 2011-12, £bn % change, inc inflation

SOURCE: DWP Annual Report
DWP Total Total 160.08 166.98 1.9
Benefit spending in Great Britain Total 153.6 159 1.1
State Pension Benefit 69.88 74.22 3.7
Housing Benefit Benefit 15.74 16.94 5.2
Disability Living Allowance Benefit 11.88 12.57 3.3
Pension Credit and Minimum Income Guarantee Benefit 8.32 8.11 -4.8
Income Support Benefit 7.79 6.92 -13.2
Rent Rebates Benefit 5.28 5.45 0.8
Attendance Allowance Benefit 5.23 5.34 -0.3
Incapacity Benefit Benefit 5.56 4.94 -13.3
Jobseekers Allowance Benefit 4.46 4.91 7.6
Council Tax Benefit Benefit 4.79 4.83 -1.7
Employment and Support Allowance Benefit 2.25 3.58 55.8
Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory Maternity Pay Benefit 2.46 2.55 1.2
Expenditure incurred by the Social Fund Benefit 3.81 2.37 -39.2
Carers Allowance Benefit 1.57 1.73 7.7
Financial Assistance Scheme Benefit -1.44 1.24 184.6
Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit Benefit 0.89 0.89 -2.3
Severe Disablement Allowance Benefit 0.89 0.88 -3.1
National Insurance Fund Benefit 1.09 0.82 -26.6
Bereavement Benefits Benefit 0.61 0.59 -5.5
TV Licences for the over 75s Benefit 0.58 0.59 -0.8
Other Benefits Benefit 0.5 0.4 -22.7
Maternity Allowance Benefit 0.34 0.37 4.2
Other Programmes Benefit 0.2 0.18 -9.3
Departmental Operating Costs Total 2.84 1.45 -49.9
Operational Delivery Dept 1.29 2.49 87.7
Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Administration Dept 0.58 0.55 -8.8
Health and Safety Executive Dept 0.2 0.18 -15.8
Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies (Net) Dept 0.39 0.38 -6.3
Employment Programmes Dept 1.81 0.88 -52.8
Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission Dept 0.39 0.48 20.9

SandraScarlett

KxMx wrote: »

But your SIL, has a chance, no matter how tough the market is, to get a better paying job.

Someone like myself on disability benefits and unable to work has not got that luxury. In my own situation I have 0 chance of getting better (believe me, it really is 0!)

Not all disability benefits are being excluded from the 1% cap as the Government would have you believe.

Alas, my SIL hasn't a chance to get a better paying job. His cousin meanwhile, has a chance to get a job, but chooses not to, as he reckons he's better off not working.

I sympathise if you're disabled, my DH receives DLA, but the 1% increase is still guaranteed - my SIL's job isn't. But I thought DLA and SRP would have more than 1%, is it 2.5%? Forgive me if I'm wrong.

xx

clemmatis

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.

Most of the benefits in question go to people in work

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/05/soldiers-nurses-teachers-benefit-curbs

@dori2o, yes; we could be in for a triple-dip recession.

rozmister

There's not enough money in the pot for everybody to keep having the yearly increases on benefits we've previously seen. That's the cold hard fact of it and unfortunately that means it's only 1% per year for the next four years. Yes it might be hard for some people but you cut your cloth from what you've got and there's not enough to go round.

Sorry if I sound cold today but I'm pretty infuriated still about the man I heard on the radio on my way home today. He worked 60 hours a week and received working tax credits, childcare tax credits and child benefit for the EIGHT children he and his partner had between them. He said it was 'shocking' he would only get a 1% increase on these benefits because 'the kids would go without' and it wasn't fair when he 'worked so hard'. Well I work hard, 55 - 65 hours every week, and have no children and I still have to go without. Times are tough and the gravy train isn't boarding.

Excluded from my extremely harsh judgement are the following; disabled people, carers, the primary carer of a young child/ren (under four and only if they don't have heaps of kids) and the elderly.