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

plum2002

ILW wrote: »

So you are a divorcee or abandoned wife. I wish the distinction between that a single mother would be bought back into common usage.

I'm neither, i am separated and as such am a single parent, as in the only parent in the household and not in a relationship

Morlock

shedboy94 wrote: »

Can you show the figures regarding the majority of all single parents work?

"In 2012...59.2 per cent of lone parents were employed."

Working and Workless Households, 2012 - Statistical Bulletin. ONS

"Once their children are 12 or over, lone parents’ employment rate is higher than the employment rate for mothers in couples (71 per cent of lone parents whose child is 11-15 are in work)."

Reforming Welfare- Tackling Child Poverty? - Scottish Parliament

shedboy94 wrote: »

The vast majority who do work though only work the bare minimum required to claim WTC.

Can you show the figures regarding those facts?

plum2002

shedboy94 wrote: »

Yes I agree that more needs to be done to tackle the tax evasion and avoidance that goes on, but that's not the issue that's being discussed at the moment - it's about the fact that the welfare system can, to a lot of people, be overly generous and needs to be reformed.

maybe, however this is not the fault of the claimants that get given so much grief on these boards. Discuss policy by all means, don't make people in difficult situations feel bad for claiming what they are elegible to claim.

shedboy94

plum2002 wrote: »

maybe, however this is not the fault of the claimants that get given so much grief on these boards. Discuss policy by all means, don't make people in difficult situations feel bad for claiming what they are elegible to claim.

Yes they may be eligible to claim, but the point is that some people take advantage of the system to claim as much as possible.

People claiming large amounts because they are allowed to is exactly the same as large companies paying the least amount of tax possible. Both are perfectly legal, but neither I agree with.

plum2002

shedboy94 wrote: »

Yes they may be eligible to claim, but the point is that some people take advantage of the system to claim as much as possible.

People claiming large amounts because they are allowed to is exactly the same as large companies paying the least amount of tax possible. Both are perfectly legal, but neither I agree with.

In other words it's actually obligatory to treat anyone who needs to claim like something nasty on the bottom of our shoes? A few may well be over egging their puddings, not all, not by a long shot.

dori2o

shedboy94 wrote: »

Yes they may be eligible to claim, but the point is that some people take advantage of the system to claim as much as possible.

People claiming large amounts because they are allowed to is exactly the same as large companies paying the least amount of tax possible. Both are perfectly legal, but neither I agree with.

Just remind me, who sets the level of the benefits.

I get DLA, but I am told how much I am getting. IF I was in a position where I wasn't spending it all, I still couldn't ask the DWP to reduce the amount I am receiving.

These amounts have not just been plucked out of the air or threw a dice and multiplied the result by 9? They didn't just decide that £54.10 was the correct amount on a whim. There will have been an assessment of the average additional costs a disabled person has and the benefit was set at that amount, and then increased based on CPI/RPI, whichever the Government decided was best for them to increase the benefit by. The cheapest and most effective way to make sure the majority are covered.

PIP will do the same.

They could introduce a scheme where the disabled have to identify their actual costs. This however would cost the country a hell of a lot more in administration and also an increase the cost of healthcare. The form as it stands now is is one of the most stressful things I have ever had to complete, it took almost 3 weeks for me to do it. there are many more on this forum who agree.

The way people go on you'd think all you have to do is fill in a couple of pages with the words 'Give me money' and within a week you have it.

That couldn't be much further from the truth. Claiming DLA was one of the most stressful situations I have ever been through and it caused further health problems itself.

I claimed in January 2011 and was awarded it in February 2012. So it's obviously not as easy as the benefit bashers make out.

SandraScarlett

plum2002 wrote: »

It's ok, we all understand, women must pay. The blokes that shag and run must be left to live their lives in peace, the women are the reason the UK is broke, they should have all benefits removed and be publicly flogged, their children must go to the workhouse.

Dear god, the reason benefits are paid is so that the children do not go without, and we need the young to keep on popping out babies, to support the older generation, of whom there are too many to support! Who pays for their pensions?

The babies that are "popped out" will only support the older generation if they have jobs, and pay taxes etc, not if they do the same as previous generations.

And how would you suggest you solve the problem of the fact that there are too many of the older generation to support? Should we go to the workhouse?

Morlock wrote: »

I read that that the average person pays around £286,311 in income and council taxes per lifetime. State pension and housing benefit alone exceeds that figure over the average retirement of around 25 years.

But if you don't get housing benefit, then what would you receive? I get just under £80 a week SRP, because I didn't have the necessary 39 years of contributions (30 now), and I have a private pension, that I paid into - not the State.

If I multiply £80 x 52 x 25 I get a figure of £104,000 and, that is only 36% of what I've paid in. So who's getting the other 64%? Hmmm ...... I wonder.

xx

clemmatis

SandraScarlett wrote: »

But if you don't get housing benefit, then what would you receive? I get just under £80 a week SRP, because I didn't have the necessary 39 years of contributions (30 now), and I have a private pension, that I paid into - not the State.

If I multiply £80 x 52 x 25 I get a figure of £104,000 and, that is only 36% of what I've paid in. So who's getting the other 64%? Hmmm ...... I wonder.

xx

Hmmm. Did you by any chance use the NHS during those years? Do you now? Have you ever claimed, for example, SSP?

And did you know NI payments are there for benefits you may not have received, but will receive should you qualify for them? That's why the scheme's called National Insurance.

princessdon

clemmatis wrote: »

Hmmm. Did you by any chance use the NHS during those years? Do you now? Have you ever claimed, for example, SSP?

And did you know NI payments are there for benefits you may not have received, but will receive should you qualify for them? That's why the scheme's called National Insurance.

If its an insurance based system why do many get without paying in?

If its insurance why do many who pay higher premiums get less than people who pay no contributions?

clemmatis

So you agree with SandraScarlett's objection to receiving less by way of an old age pension alone than she paid in, and less than someone who paid the same would receive were they disabled?

(And you think children should receive nothing?)