MSE News: Benefits cap comes into force
Comments
-
Re the 6 kids couple and the woman being refused sterilisation - the man could have a snip. Few years back.
There is not reason/excuse to have so many kids when one can not support themselves and/or the kids.0 -
gettingready wrote: »Taking into consideration my travel to work costs, the single non working person getting 350 per week is around 250 per month better off that a single working person earning 1400 per month after tax.
Any single, unemployed person receiving £350 per week in benefits would need to be paying rent of around £280 per week, which is not an unusually high rent in the South East for a one-bedroom property. Rent controls should be enforced, not benefits cut.0 -
Working people pay the same level of rents and have to work/commute and pay for being squashed on public transport for several hours per week to be able to afford their rent.
Benefit cap is way too high. Should be below NMW level for a full time job. Not higher, not even equivalent.0 -
I think you're right that in that short-term it'll cost, but the whole point of the reforms (in general, including UC) is to make long term changes. The UK has the highest proportion of children living in workless household in the EU (other than Ireland), and by region Inner London is higher than anywhere else.Ben_Reeve-Lewis wrote: »No need to apologise for voicing an opinion, I certainly wont shoot you.
I have this argument with my missus everyday, she shares your views, as do many others so it is a familiar argument and my angle on this isn’t to disagree with you. Why should people who do nothing in return for their income get more help than I would when I spend all my working hours either saving people’s homes from repossession or training others how to do it?
That isn’t the point. The morality of the situation is neither here nor there. Its about the practicalities of it.
OK. Cut their benefits….why not? Make them appreciate that you don’t get owt for nowt. Then what? Who picks up the pieces? Who pays? We do.
A single mum with 4 kids is never going to be able to work because she cant afford the childcare. You could take the view that she shouldn’t have had the kids, you could also say “where is their dad in all this”? both valid questions but what happens then?
The law wont allow them to sleep on the street so if landlords wont rent to them where do they go? As I said above, the homelessness unit that’s where and who pays for the homelessness unit? We do.
All I ask when people voice this opinion is that they step aside from an outraged position and just look at it from a practical perspective. If benefit caps mean landlords wont rent to benefit tenants what then?
Of course you could take the view that they should move somewhere where the cap wont hit them but that is a very naïve and simplistic argument. A great debate stopper that denies a lot of inconvenient truths
Why do you think this is? Do you think it's anything to do with the structure of our tax and benefits system? In particular the following features:
1) Benefits in other EU countries tend to more contributory - ie pay nothing (or not a lot in) and you get a lot less out.
2) In other countries families are supported more through the tax system than the benefit system, encouraging people to work and reducing marginal withdrawal rates for families
3) The higher your costs & needs (eg rent, children), the less incentive there is to work as the marginal deduction rates are sky high until you earn really serious money.
So you get the silly situation where people on benefits can have more children without needing to consider whether they can afford them, whereas people not reliant on means tested benefits often need to take a big drop in standard of living when they have kids, plus you get people living in places like Central London more likely to be unemployed than people living in depressed parts of the country.
In addition of course there's the cost of childcare, but there is a lot of support in tax credits plus childcare vouchers (which reduce taxable income and hence increase tax credits).
http://www.poverty.org.uk/18/index.shtml0 -
1) Benefits in other EU countries tend to more contributory - ie pay nothing (or not a lot in) and you get a lot less out.
Exactly - contribution based equivalent of job seekers allowance is at a level of last salary (!!!) for a while and then goes down bit by bit. For people that were working and CONTRIBUTED.
For people that never worked, never contributed - it is a very basic amount.
In UK - contribution or income based, the amount people get is exactly the same, terribly unfair system.
PLUS - contribution based JSA does not allow for free perscription/dentist but income baed one does. So if someone worked and lost a job - they are not allowed to have free medication/dentist but people who never worked do.
Hillarious really.
No wonder so many people never bother to work0 -
gettingready wrote: »Working people pay the same level of rents and have to work/commute and pay for being squashed on public transport for several hours per week to be able to afford their rent.
And in many cases those working people still need to claim housing benefit to live in a crappy one-bedroom flat. Rent controls need to be enforced, not housing benefit cut.0 -
gettingready wrote: »In UK - contribution or income based, the amount people get is exactly the same, terribly unfair system.
It isn't exactly the same, particularly if claimants are part of a couple, other capital and household income is not considered when claiming contributions-based benefits.0 -
The base amounts are the same. And even contribution based JSA is reduced by some income, eg a low hours job or a pension. Plus income based JSA passports you to some additional benefits which contribution based doesn't.It isn't exactly the same, particularly if claimants are part of a couple, other capital and household income is not considered when claiming contributions-based benefits.0 -
"Working people" won't be subject to the benefit cap.
Something is very wrong when a person working full time on minimum wage cannot afford to rent a one-bedroom flat, even at the LHA rate, which is in the bottom 30th percentile of affordability in the rental market, and needs to claim housing benefit.
Either wages are too low, rents are too high, or both.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards