Welfare Reform

Somerset

dktreesea wrote: »

I guess the closest we will get to that situation here, once UC comes in, is if people get sanctioned for long periods of time. Where the Americans do seem to be a bit different is that a lot of people seem to qualify for disability pension over there that wouldn't qualify for DLA or income support here.

Don't really know the in's and out's of the US system, but it's very much predicated on work. When we went to the US a year ago and visited the relative's, I found it a bit weird, how much they talked about work/the economy/(lack of) benefit's etc etc. We drove NY down to North Carolina and back to NY via the coast, the 'trailer' living was enormous, at first it shocks you then you get acclimatized to it. We stopped at towns where 80% of the shops were boarded up.

It's one thing reading it, it's another thing 'feeling' it. They literally have sod all safety net. You work because you have to, no other way to have food, housing, decent healthcare. You have to provide for yourself/family because you're on the street otherwise. Remember those 'tent city' article's ?

Hence why 'my lot' talked about work/wage's/who's hiring etc , though at the time I didn't 'get it'. Work or lack of it, was a calamity.

Growurown

Somerset wrote: »

Hence why 'my lot' talked about work/wage's/who's hiring etc , though at the time I didn't 'get it'. Work or lack of it, was a calamity.

I've heard that the welfare system in the US is tougher than ours. Only one child supported and no benefits at all after two years. Plus their minimum wage is a lot less than ours.

Depth_Charge

Hi

The level of rental costs (depending on the area you live) makes the benefit cap a little nonsensical in my opinion and would be slaughtered if applied in any other sphere.

Debt, repossesions and homelessness are a certainty.

Whatever side of the welfare reform debate people are on there still has to be common sense and an alternative or there will be no real savings, just poverty & misery for someone else to end up dealing with and again children are innocent.

Some of the welfare reform just makes no economical sense either way.

Just my opinions.

dktreesea

Depth_Charge wrote: »

Hi

The level of rental costs (depending on the area you live) makes the benefit cap a little nonsensical in my opinion and would be slaughtered if applied in any other sphere.

Debt, repossesions and homelessness are a certainty.

Whatever side of the welfare reform debate people are on there still has to be common sense and an alternative or there will be no real savings, just poverty & misery for someone else to end up dealing with and again children are innocent.

Some of the welfare reform just makes no economical sense either way.

Just my opinions.

Debt, repossessions and homelessness already happen anyway, even to those who are working and earn enough to avoid the choice of whether or not to accept welfare. Whatever reforms take place, people can still avoid all of those things if they live within their means.

Depth_Charge

dktreesea wrote: »

Debt, repossessions and homelessness already happen anyway, even to those who are working and earn enough to avoid the choice of whether or not to accept welfare. Whatever reforms take place, people can still avoid all of those things if they live within their means.

Hi

I understand what you are saying to a certain extent but I cannot agree where the benefit cap applies and the rents are high making the figures unworkable.

The regional differences in rents and indeed on individual rents compared to others make this point.

There is also a limit to what 'living within their means' actually means or where does it end.

When you examine the figures closely there appears to be a re-write of budgeting and expenditure figures and who knows creditors, courts and others etc might start to say people in debt should only spend these amounts and pay the rest back (if they are on benefits or working) what is the difference they might ask?

Maybe people in debt general will be targeted next or scapegoated, it may go something like this..they have had the money so why dont they pay it back, why should we pay more because of them?

Looking ahead it will probably end up in a mess for some, but the goverment seem to mean what they say on this one and we shall see as it is very early days yet.

seven-day-weekend

£350 a week for a single person seems more than reasonable for the cap. My son works and earns about half this.

dktreesea

LHA is likely to fall in real terms. If people live in areas where rents are high, particularly given the LHA is meant to have fallen to a level set at at or below 30% of the rents in a given area, rather than 50% (has this actually happened yet?) presumably they are meant to move to a cheaper area. Now that liar loans are a thing of the past, people tend not to buy houses they can't afford. Why should people be able to rent wherever they like if they are dependant on other taxpayers to fund the rental?

pennies_from_Heaven

dktreesea wrote: »

Why should people be able to rent wherever they like if they are dependant on other taxpayers to fund the rental?

I agree with this. My oh and I both work extremely hard and our income is just over the amount for us to not be entitled to any benefits apart from the child benefit given to all who earn below £40k. (I hope that is the correct figure) oh salary has gone down also, due to cuts in overtime etc.
Our rent for an old and temperamental property is 1k a month, we don't go on days out, don't buy flash clothes, I've had my car for 8 years and need to replace it but can't afford to, can't afford to drink or smoke - you get the picture.
This year I've scraped together some cash for a little holiday, and can't wait!
You explain to me why someone on benefits appears to have more life choices than we do, when we work full time to care for ourselves and our family?
I might add with regards to the post about a grocery bill of £130 a week, we have to budget tightly for food and manage on half that amount for 2 adults and 2 children.
I'm fed up as I feel the focus is on how bad off those on benefits are, what about us on low/middle incomes? If this carries on we weill have to move our private rented house to a really bad area but no-one will give a stuff about us will they?

Growurown

dktreesea wrote: »

Why should people be able to rent wherever they like if they are dependant on other taxpayers to fund the rental?

It used to be the case that if you could rent somewhere cheaper than housing benefit paid, you got to keep the difference. Some rents in London were so high that people on benefits had no chance of ever earning enough to cover it, so they didn't work and were caught in the benefit trap. The benefit cap is designed to either force people into work or move them out to somewhere cheaper, plus it discourages them from having more children to get more money.

pennies_from_Heaven wrote: »

I'm fed up as I feel the focus is on how bad off those on benefits are, what about us on low/middle incomes? If this carries on we weill have to move our private rented house to a really bad area but no-one will give a stuff about us will they?

I think there are many people who feel like this. If you have children then I think you aren't that badly off on benefits if you are sensible with your money and budget. I wouldn't say you are well off though. The people who really struggle are those who rely on JSA of seventy pounds a week and now a lot of those people are having to pay extra out of their money for the bedroom tax and not a lot of option about moving to anywhere smaller.

pennies_from_Heaven

Growurown wrote: »

I think there are many people who feel like this. If you have children then I think you aren't that badly off on benefits if you are sensible with your money and budget. I wouldn't say you are well off though. The people who really struggle are those who rely on JSA of seventy pounds a week and now a lot of those people are having to pay extra out of their money for the bedroom tax and not a lot of option about moving to anywhere smaller.

I think you misread my post - we're not on benefits! Just on less than the £500 a week cap which is being imposed. We actually both work and earn less than £500 a week, and get no benefits of any kind except for child allowance which is paid to everyone, unless one parent earns above 40k.
I suppose my argument is that there is a lot of attention on how 'poor' those who will have their benefits capped will be, however, what about those of us who bring in less than £500 a week nett as a household, but get no benefits and cope/struggle?