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

indieemu

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

You are still on benefits. You aren't "classified" as not being on benefits.

I know I am benefits, and I have absolutely no problem admitting that. I receive everything i am able to claim for. I don't think that CTC, WTC, and HB are not benefits. They most definitely are.

What I meant in my original post was that in the general discussion surrounding this whole topic, too much emphasis was put on benefits meaning those on JSA. This bill effects those not on JSA also.

plum2002

If a working parent cannot survive without tax credits and possibly other welfare payments, what should they do? I really want to know what all those that complain about them being paid from the welfare budget expect them to do? Starve? Crawl on the streets with their children and beg?

The country is NOT broke because of welfare payments, that's an easy Government scapegoat - the stupid in our society will swallow it hook, line and sinker and turn on their neighbours - conveniently distracting 'us' from the many major !!!! ups they are orchestrating. Well done benefit bashers you are doing exactly what the Daily Fail and the Tories want you to, it's a great shame you can't see past the end of your noses, but not to worry, in a couple of years once this strategy has failed you get to vote to keep them in. :eek:

MissMoneypenny

ILW wrote: »

They were costing a fortune when nationalised. The waste was massive and I believe the prices (compared to wages) were higher than now.

Its always the same with most of the public sector. They don't have to turn a profit, so they squander money; overstaff; strike.

The longterm civil servants/council workers always knew that when Tories got in, they got staffing cuts and worked harder. But when Labour got in, they were overstaffed and therefore didn't have to work hard.

After a decade of Labour, many have only known work under them and it's probably come as a bit of a shock. We never had the money to pay them in line with the private sector and those great pensions anyway and Labour never put this money aside as they never had it in the first place. They were borrowing heavily.

MissMoneypenny

regbrown wrote: »

I would not wish JSA on my worst enemy and I would never compare benefit rises to my own (or lack of) pay rises.

We need a two tier payment for JSA. A much higher rate for JSA for those that have worked 35+ hours a week in the UK for the previous 10 years and that lasts for 1 year. And a payment of less than £71(?), for those that haven't.

regbrown wrote: »

This lot have already gone after the genuinely sick with venom,

They are paying more to the genuine sick. It's the malingerers that they are going after and these are the people that have caused the genuine sick to go through all this.

MissMoneypenny

indieemu wrote: »

What I meant in my original post was that in the general discussion surrounding this whole topic, too much emphasis was put on benefits meaning those on JSA. This bill effects those not on JSA also.

Ah right. Sorry.

As it should. Many of those in work, claim welfare too.

Even with child benefit, many delude themselves that it isn't really a benefit that they are claiming (despite the big clue being in the name).

MissMoneypenny

plum2002 wrote: »

If a working parent cannot survive without tax credits and possibly other welfare payments, what should they do?

No one is saying that you can't have welfare. What they are saying is that some claimants need to cut their cloth accordingly.

Work hard at school so that you can earn a good wage. Do what we use to do and plan for a baby. Savings before you try for a baby and at least one parent working to provide for the child until it starts school; when both parents can then work. Stop turning out child after child when you are on welfare (and yes, tax credits are welfare). Work more hours, especially when there are 2 parents. I don't know anyone who works less than 50 hours a week.

Work is the way out of poverty.

princessdon

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

We need a two tier payment for JSA. A much higher rate for JSA for those that have worked 35+ hours a week in the UK for the previous 10 years and that lasts for 1 year. And a payment of less than £71(?), for those that haven't.



They are paying more to the genuine sick. It's the malingerers that they are going after and these are the people that have caused the genuine sick to go through all this.

I have been saying that for ages. In other comparable countries they have a contribution based system based on earnings and time. For example my cousin lost his job after 8 years, he got 90% for 6 months, then 70% for 3 months then 30% for 3 months. After 12 months he would have been on a standard 20% for another year.

They work this out net of benefits so any "family benefits" paid would be taken into account when giving this.

In comparision when my OH was made redundant we went from a £70K basic (overtime and bonus extra) to £71 pw.

Meanwhile others get paid far more. The system does need an overhaul in many respects. I'm not sure I beleive the Tory spin that working families are the priority when 24 hours between 2 people gives such a huge wage and familiies like mine were left high and dry to lose their home, and this hasn't changed.

But ... I support any working Lone Parent, especially if entitled to IS, or any FT worker with children. You can't ask more.

That said the 1% is right, they get Tax Allowance Increase, their HB isn't part of this if interest rates force rets up etc.

I'd rather JSA was taken out as it isn't enough to live off and they dealt with the housing costs, which in a way they are doing as they keep IR low.

It's wrong when "income bashers" are quick to say 50K you don't deserve a penny when you pay such high taxes and then give a 50K salary to a couple working 24 hrs NMW in benefits.

Anyway we all know it's a mess - just depends on what side of the fence you sit on as to where the mess is I guess.

KxMx

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

They are paying more to the genuine sick. It's the malingerers that they are going after and these are the people that have caused the genuine sick to go through all this.

The genuine sick on ESA (work Group), Income Support (awaiting ESA transfer) and Incapacity Benefit (as before) are in for the 1% cap.

And DLA, one of the benefits protected from the cap, is being changed to PIP with an openly admitted Government target of kicking off 20% of claimants.

So those genuine sick aren't being protected.

You are very, very naive if you think it's a case of the genuine being protected and the malingers being punished. Dear me.

dori2o

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

You are still on benefits. You aren't "classified" as not being on benefits.

Some parents do the minimum work to maximise their welfare payments, but strangely, they still don't think they are on benefits; despite claiming more cash benefits than those on jsa without children

For the record, before tax credits came in, the single parents managed to work and pay for their own childcare, without welfare payments. I do appreciate that the last government pushed up childcare charges and housing costs and that these need to be reduced asap.

You think it's just housing and childcare costs that have risen forcing the need for tax credits?

When we moved into this house in 2002 or monthly gas and electric bill was about £65, it's now £130, A 100% INCREASE.

In 2002 council tax on this house was £700, it's now £1150.

In 2002 we paid £9 a month for water (unmetered), now it's £21 a month.

Just 3 years ago I used to be able to do a weekly shop for £35, it's now closer to £55 a week and the things we buy have not changed in that time.

In 1998 when I passed my driving test, petrol was 48p/litre, currently our local petrol station is charging £1.34, a 279% increase in 15 years, on average 18% a year, way above inflation, wage increases and increases in benefits.

It isn't just housing and childcare costs that are the problem, big businesses have got greedy forcing prices up for everyone.

It was possible in the 80's and earlier to live on the average salary, even below the average salary without the sums given to people that we see today, but that is because everything cost so much less then compared with today. Just like comparing footballers of the 60's/70's/80's with the modern day player, it's an impossible task as things have moved on so much over that time.

There's only 1 way to reduce the need for tax credits amongst those who are working, that is to increase the NMW to a level where tax credits wouldn't be paid.

That however wouldn't suit the capitalists, they would revolt at the thought of the lowest rungs of the ladder being paid a living salary. Afterall, it would seriously affect their dividend payments, and we can't have that now can we.

plum2002

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

No one is saying that you can't have welfare. What they are saying is that some claimants need to cut their cloth accordingly.

Work hard at school so that you can earn a good wage. Do what we use to do and plan for a baby. Savings before you try for a baby and at least one parent working to provide for the child until it starts school; when both parents can then work. Stop turning out child after child when you are on welfare (and yes, tax credits are welfare). Work more hours, especially when there are 2 parents. I don't know anyone who works less than 50 hours a week.

Work is the way out of poverty.

I agree that hard work and planning make for a better life (i am a living example of this - I work 70+ hours a week, am a single parent of 3 and I earn over the CB limit)BUT, there are many in our society unable to hold down a job for a myriad of reasons, ranging from severe illness to zero education due to learning difficulties.

Part of living in a society is recognising that society has an obligation to support those less fortunate. In years gone by that would be the family, the church, the parish and as a last resort the workhouse. In this day and age we have the Welfare State, this is a good thing. In an ideal world we would never need it, but we don't live in an ideal world and I for one am grateful that there is a safety net in place for those in need.

By the by the cuts are costing more to implement than they will save in the next 10 years, time to put the thinking caps on to find another solution maybe?