What's the fuss about this new benefit caps?

wotsthat

ggb1979 wrote: »

Is that what you do?

I'm sorry but I would find that morally wrong.

I have no issue with paying tax and also believe in a welfare state but am shocked at how much cash you and your family get, at my expense.

Your unfounded worries about morals are preventing you from doing the same thing even though your son would benefit? Have you got your priorities right?

I pay money into a pension, get 40% tax relief and, as a Brucey Bonus, poorer people give me child benefit which I wouldn't otherwise qualify for. I just raise my eyebrows a little and assume the government are really keen for me to save.

I wish my employer did salary sacrifice - that's the gift that really keeps on giving.

It's not complicated but let's keep it on the hush hush because I fear the Chancellor is finally starting to twig.

ukcarper

michaels wrote: »

Oops - forgot - on top of the 13.6k tax credits we also get 2.4k child benefit. We don't live in London, don't get any housing or council tax benefit or free school meals and yet we are only 4k short of the 20k limit.

The third kid gives someone £290 a month I think that is to much.

Mistermeaner

The thing that irks me a bit with the benefits system is it seems a bit all or nothing.

If you try and do the right things, so work hard, pay your taxes own a home, live within your means , have savings your own pensiin, insurance health care etc but then fall on hard times you would be means tested and I fear qualify for very little until it's all gone.

However if you just say from the start, I won't work hard or get a mortgage, I'll have as many kids as I want and not worry about saving anything then the state kicks in to give you a free house and free cash with you having made no effort to earn it.

This just doesn't seem right and doesn't incentivise the right behaviours.

I would like some system where there is a minimum level of basic support available for all, but very very basic, then there is a safety net which pays out on basis of your prior contributions.

If for whatever reason I lost my job and couldn't work I fear me and my son would have to basically lose everything we have worked for before we would qualify for anything, despite having funded the likes of michaels for many years.

My associate round the corner, who works cash in hand and does very well on benefits with his non working partner and 2 kids don't have any such worries, yes they don't own their house but it's all paid for and they don't have to worry about half the things I do. Plus they have all the time in the world to do whatever they want like walking to school with the kids in the morning. Why would they bother trying harder?

remorseless

lisyloo wrote: »

My mother is 88 and is very frail and can hardly walk (plus has dimensia) so in no way could look after children.

I wouldn't expect your mum to look after the kids at 88! But unless your mum had you in her 40s and you have your kids in your 40s, how old are these kids that need care??

lisyloo wrote: »

We have caps and limits to stop it. That's exactly what they are for.

yes that's the problem too, the caps are way too high!!!!

Generali

remorseless wrote: »

Children are a privilege not a right! And if you cannot afford them, feed them, cloth them, educate them and the lot, then it is very irresponsible to bring them into the world.

It is not like as if the world population is in decline anyway...



very little, so that the behaviour is not encouraged. Being on benefit should not be looked as a viable option...

Reproduction is a primal driving force. You can no more expect people not to breed than you can expect them to stop eating or sleeping.

ukcarper

ggb1979 wrote: »

The thing that irks me a bit with the benefits system is it seems a bit all or nothing.

If you try and do the right things, so work hard, pay your taxes own a home, live within your means , have savings your own pensiin, insurance health care etc but then fall on hard times you would be means tested and I fear qualify for very little until it's all gone.

However if you just say from the start, I won't work hard or get a mortgage, I'll have as many kids as I want and not worry about saving anything then the state kicks in to give you a free house and free cash with you having made no effort to earn it.

This just doesn't seem right and doesn't incentivise the right behaviours.

I would like some system where there is a minimum level of basic support available for all, but very very basic, then there is a safety net which pays out on basis of your prior contributions.

If for whatever reason I lost my job and couldn't work I fear me and my son would have to basically lose everything we have worked for before we would qualify for anything, despite having funded the likes of michaels for many years.

My associate round the corner, who works cash in hand and does very well on benefits with his non working partner and 2 kids don't have any such worries, yes they don't own their house but it's all paid for and they don't have to worry about half the things I do. Plus they have all the time in the world to do whatever they want like walking to school with the kids in the morning. Why would they bother trying harder?

He is breaking the law and if he is in private rented accommodation he will only get the rent for a 1 bed flat when his kids leave.

wotsthat

michaels wrote: »

Oops - forgot - on top of the 13.6k tax credits we also get 2.4k child benefit. We don't live in London, don't get any housing or council tax benefit or free school meals and yet we are only 4k short of the 20k limit.

What's your approach to do this?

Do you salary sacrifice down to minimum wage and then manage on this plus the benefits or are you using savings to supplement income?

lisyloo

I wouldn't expect your mum to look after the kids at 88! But unless your mum had you in her 40s and you have your kids in your 40s, how old are these kids that need care??

MIL was 39 when she had my husband. Yes women of 40+ do have kids these days.
It was an example.
There are plenty of reasons people can't rely on family.
Deceased, live in Australia, abusive, not interested,alhohic, in prison, in hospital etc. etc.

It's all very well making ultra harsh rules, but it is the children who will suffer.
In your world we'd have kids being neglected and "ferral" people hanging round the streets nicking stuff.
It's not an option to just throw people on the streets.
You'll have to live in a gated comunity and own a gun.
It's not morally ok, but it wouldn't be pleasant for the wealthy either.

I do actually agree with you that people get too much these days nd think government policy is going in the right direction, but I'd still like to see compassion for those genuinely in need.

michaels

remorseless wrote: »

so does it mean you will end up with a better pension than someone who's been working without receiving any benefits?

More pension contributions hopefully mean a better pension but I guess that also means less liekly to claim means tested benefits in retirement and more likely to pay more tax in retirement.

Of course your house isn't the only asset that is disregarded when claiming benefits including UC, penson contributions are as well, somethign to think about perhaps if decidign whether to save in a pension or an isa.

As far as loop holes go it requires you to be disciplined in terms of living off much less than your income now which probably counts out a large proportion of the population who spend according to what they earn rather than what they need.

Mistermeaner

Please tell me you cannot pension yourself into low income brackets to claim benefits? That would just be ridiculous.