New benefit cap....coming in summer 2013

bloomingflower

princessdon wrote: »

But it has no relevance to the cap when it doen't apply if working. It's all part of the working *cough* pays agenda.

Work PT you get them back

Hi Princessdon,

I know, I do understand what you mean. And I do also understand that the government wants to try and get everyone into work and get rid of unemployment altogether which in an ideal world this would be great!

I was more referring to the fact that it has always been the case by 'tax payers' that non working people are the only ones who seem to claim any type of benefits. Which is wrong in my eyes.:(

mrs_motivated

Ok some stats at the demographic population I am looking at. The 1 percent cap on child related benefits, claimed by workers also equates to a 14 million local economy loss over six years.


Oops ignore please wrong thread.

princessdon

clemmatis wrote: »

Then why not help out lower paid workers instead?

Like RAISING the tax allowance to 10K - so they now pay no or little tax.
Like Paying their childcare
Like Allowing them to work 24 hours a week between 2 and get Tax Credits
Like paying a susbtantial part of rent

I could go on, part time workers get a lot of help - it puts them on par with high earners as there is little take home difference
at times.

Conversely for middle income earners = they have removed CB, raised the threshold for tax, and from what I have read lowered the TC threshold.

clemmatis

So, princessdon, the people who are whining about benefits and supporting a cap on benefits and a !% capped rise, and saying they'd be better off on benefits/it doesn't pay to work, are in fact getting more than they would if they were on benefits... .

princessdon

clemmatis wrote: »

So, princessdon, the people who are whining about benefits and supporting a cap on benefits and a !% capped rise, and saying they'd be better off on benefits/it doesn't pay to work, are in fact getting more than they would if they were on benefits... .

I can't speak for everyone as I would always be better off working as would never be entitled to means tested benefits

But yes the idea is that a comparable worker FT to none worker particularly low paid under UC and the worker is better off.

At the moment they are not always better off on a like for like comparison. In fact some are DOWN after travel costs.

This is supposedly being addressed and the cap and the none rise are the first stages.

bloomingflower

princessdon wrote: »

But it has no relevance to the cap when it doen't apply if working. It's all part of the working *cough* pays agenda.

Work PT you get them back

clemmatis wrote: »

Then why not help out lower paid workers instead?

mrs_motivated wrote: »

Ok some stats at the demographic population I am looking at. The 1 percent cap on child related benefits, claimed by workers also equates to a 14 million local economy loss over six years.


Oops ignore please wrong thread.

The above are all good valid points. I will try not to go off topic!

I also believe there isn't enough emphasis being focused on the issue of low paid workers whether part or full time as clemmatis has pointed out in her post.

The NMW doesn't really help much in terms of a living wage for workers in this category combined together with employers having to freeze salaries and so forth.

But I also think employers mainly need to start thinking about how they are going to start help moving unemployed people back into work too by offering a decent wage.

There surely must be some onus on them too.This would relieve the pressure off the government. They have had enough.

By offering a living wage his would help move more and more people back into work and that would mean they would not have to rely on state benefits.

princessdon

bloomingflower wrote: »

The above are all good valid points. I will try not to go off topic!

I also believe there isn't enough emphasis being focused on the issue of low paid workers whether part or full time as clemmatis has pointed out in her post.

The NMW doesn't really help much in terms of a living wage for workers in this category combined together with employers having to freeze salaries and so forth.

But I also think employers mainly need to start thinking about how they are going to start help moving unemployed people back into work too by offering a decent wage.

There surely must some onus on them too.

This would move more and more people back into work earning a living wage and that would mean they would not have to rely on state benefits.

There should be an onus and NMW has incresed dramatically - far more than inflation

It's the housing mess and housing costs that cause people not being able to survive on NMW.

They are trying by raising the personal allowance and not decreasing the rates you attract HB.

There is never going to be £35K circa for not working when a couple working for that won't get any help.

zoominatorone

clemmatis wrote: »

As has been pointed out on the other thread, most of the affected benefits also go to people in work.

So you keep saying

zoominatorone

sulkisu wrote: »

I'm shocked that OP has only just found out about this.

I'm shocked that people on here think a family getting TWENTY FOUR/SIX THOUSAND pounds a year is perfectly acceptable.

And that doesn't include the ones with the bad backs and depression/anxiety who will be on even more!

sulkisu

annie_cardiff wrote: »

Just found out that benefits will be capped from this summer, and very interesting reading, was unaware of these changes up until today but worth looking on your local government site for the details. It seems that benefit will be capped at £5oo per week for families and single parents and £350 per week for single people. This will include your housing and council tax benefit ,most other benefits included except working tax credit. Cannot believe they have even included bereavement allowance in this....:mad:

I cannot believe that you have only just heard about this!