Benefit cuts timetable

lukieboy96

The changes may not come in until 2016 even if said on Wednesday. I am on DLA HR Care and Low rate mobilityand ESA IR. I am not worrying as nothing can be done if it happens.

rogerblack

topaztiger1983 wrote: »

I work for NMW full-time and I get no HB so obviously your argument is not all that valid

You presumably do not live in the highest rental cost areas in the country.
Most of the benefit capped households are in these areas, or the capping is primarily due to benefits gotten for children.
Purely being out of work gets you ~73/week.

topaztiger1983

I know about benefits and how much you get as I was on JSA for 3 years and I live in Rotherham so not a high rental area no, but the point is not that is it now

rogerblack

topaztiger1983 wrote: »

I know about benefits and how much you get as I was on JSA for 3 years and I live in Rotherham so not a high rental area no, but the point is not that is it now

Exactly what is 'the point'?
People on, or off JSA are entitled to similar amounts of HB, CB, and many other benefits.
These are counted in the cap.

BrassicWoman

topaztiger1983 wrote: »

I work for NMW full-time and I get no HB so obviously your argument is not all that valid

As I recall it took a wee while to get your NMW job. How quickly you become self righteous.

I can live with few benefit scoungers if the vast majority in need get support. That's what being in a society means to me; helping others.

If you want serious cuts, look to the pensioners. If you want to tackle the deficit look to tax evasion. But don't spout Daily Mail rubbish because it's easier than actual research.

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/editorial/exposing-benefit-%E2%80%98myths%E2%80%99

Mersey_2

rogerblack wrote: »

Essentially noone on benefits is given 'twice the minimum wage'.
For people who have high benefit incomes, and are out of work, their level of benefit due to being out of work is small. They would get more-or-less the same benefit - housing/child - if they moved into work.
Most of the money in the extreme cases is not 'given to the claimant' - it's given either directly, or to be paid to the landlord.
Who is almost certainly considerably richer than the tenant.

People qualified for higher level DLA or ESA are pretty much 'the most needy'. (exceptions of course exist).

True.


I think the misconception is due to the benefit cap being £26k pa.


Of course, those on JSA only receive £3k - £4k pa.


I doubt any would argue that's too much.


I think it's the number of long-term claimants that annoy the public, rather than they receive too much, plus the myriad of other benefits, ie with lots of children and housing benefit a few families did receive huge sums, such as the terrorist on the front pages today. But 99% did/do not.

zagfles

bloolagoon wrote: »

They are :mad:

I know of at least 1 person pushed into crisis as the Internet has informed them they will be destitute and homeless.

Maybe we should follow NZ's lead and make a law against harmful trolling.

zagfles

BrassicWoman wrote: »

As I recall it took a wee while to get your NMW job. How quickly you become self righteous.

I can live with few benefit scoungers if the vast majority in need get support. That's what being in a society means to me; helping others.

If you want serious cuts, look to the pensioners. If you want to tackle the deficit look to tax evasion. But don't spout Daily Mail rubbish because it's easier than actual research.

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/editorial/exposing-benefit-%E2%80%98myths%E2%80%99

Here's a few more myths:

Pensioners are treated generously by the benefits system
Wrong, the UK spends only 5.6% of GDP on pensioner benefits, significantly less than the OECD average of 7.9%. Germany spends 10.6%, France 13.8%.

Whereas spending on working age benefits is 5.1% in the UK, compared to the OECD average of 4.4%

Benefits go to people who don't need them
Wrong, at least nowhere near as much as it does in other countries. The UK benefits system is heavily targetted towards those with the lowest incomes. Whereas most other EU countries take account of contributions far more.

The working age poor are hard done by
Wrong, the total UK spending on benefits as a proportion of GDP is above the OECD average, and as above, that spending is biased towards those of working age and towards those with lower incomes.

That's basically why the govt will target working age benefits, not pensioners. Even after all the cuts, the UK benefits system will still be one of the most generous in the world to the working age poor.

Figures from: http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2014-Social-Expenditure-Update-Nov2014-8pages.pdf

[Deleted User]

zagfles wrote: »

Err, the £12bn is going to over the next 3 years. It won't all come into effect on Wednesday.

Over the last 5 years, about 16.7bn of cuts were made to welfare.

Carry on trying to scare people if you want. The cuts were in the Tory manifesto. The usual rags tried to scare people before the election. It didn't work then, and hopefully won't now. We'll soon find out the truth. In the meantime, panic if you want. Scare others if you want. I won't.

correction they are looking to cut the welfare by £12 billion a YEAR

[Deleted User]

Mersey wrote: »

True.


I think the misconception is due to the benefit cap being £26k pa.


Of course, those on JSA only receive £3k - £4k pa.


I doubt any would argue that's too much.


I think it's the number of long-term claimants that annoy the public, rather than they receive too much, plus the myriad of other benefits, ie with lots of children and housing benefit a few families did receive huge sums, such as the terrorist on the front pages today. But 99% did/do not.

Many ignorant people who's opinions are formed by the daily mail believe that many on benefits have 15 kids,the truth is that less than 200 families on benefits have 10 or more