Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,126 Posts
BBC News - Government suffers Lords defeat over benefit cap plan

Is £26,000 net (equiv £35k gross) really an unreasonable cap to place on welfare ?
No. Not if people who have previously been employed and have lost a job through no fault of their own, 26 large is very fair & a lot more than what lots of people earn.

Cap the rate for those scroungers who have never worked, paid tax & NI or are happy living of benefits at a lot less, c£0.50p:mad:

If they have kids, adopt them via a sale to the highest bidder with a clean record:thumbs:
 
E

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
No. Not if people who have previously been employed and have lost a job through no fault of their own, 26 large is very fair & a lot more than what lots of people earn.

Cap the rate for those scroungers who have never worked, paid tax & NI or are happy living of benefits at a lot less, c£0.50p:mad:

If they have kids, adopt them via a sale to the highest bidder with a clean record:thumbs:
There most definitely should be a distinction between those that have put into the system, and those that have not.

Being a slag and get knocked up numerous times while ****ed on WKD, should also not be an automatic way of getting a big house for free.

It annoys me that my Sister has had to struggle as a single parent after her husband walked out, all because she earns just too much to get any real help. When at the same time a neighbour of my folks deliberatly got pregnant to give up work and get benefits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,234 Posts
26K PA for doing sweet FA . . . . . .:eek: That to me would represent an almost 18% wage increase. I'm doing something bloody wrong.

On this one I side with DC :eek:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
77,372 Posts
And back to the main thrust of the debate - can someone tell me, as a net figure, how much money this reform will actually save? By that I mean a clear, overall net save on spending, and not just a case of moving it around from one balance sheet to another.

Not looking for argument - or "there is no alternative"......just a properly researched and defendable figure with some "working out" to show for it.

Thanks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
77,372 Posts
I think the Gov figure is £270M ?
Aye - I have read something along those lines......can you point me to something that shows how that pans out, please?

I'm wondering about the net effect of benefits being pulled perhaps causing a load or pressure in other areas, such as the NHS, police and courts systems.

I'm also wondering if that's been modelled in some way, because it seems likely (to me at least) that there will be some effects other than a simple reduction in spend at one point in the chain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,536 Posts
I don't know about modelling the effect elsewhere - good point though. They know the exact number of families affected and where they live. It was in the BBC report which I read yesterday. IIRC they said it was expected to affect 30,000 families but (I think) it was revised to about 50,000 if they included or excluded another benefit, which again I think, was child benefit.

My initial reaction to this was, and remains, that it seems quite fair and reasonable for benefits to be capped at the equivalent of the national average wage. Various clergy and "spokespeople" for those on benefits argue against it saying it threatens poverty for another 100,000 children. Since many families must be earning less than the average to create the average, it is safe to assume that many manage despite the hardship....or the clergy care less about those paying their own way and bringing their kids up as best they can with minimal hand outs.
 
K

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I think a cap is reasonable but I also think the government is completely out of touch.

There was a woman on Radio 5 last night who had 7 kids. I know what you are thinking but she had 7 kids with the same husband and everything was rosy until he died leaving her and the 7 kids financially in the mire. she's got 7 kids to look after so working isn't necesarily easy to manage.

The Minister (one of the many chinless wonders, I forget which) said "Some people will need to change their circumstances". What does she do? Put a couple of them up for adoption?

I agree with the first part of what Al said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,280 Posts
that's the crux of it - on the face of it i think it's a great idea to put a limit on benefits. it's grossly unfair that 50% of the working population pay tax on their below-average incomes to enable a small number of people to do zero work and yet receive more money than them and potentially live in a (free) bigger house in a nicer area than them. people who work have to adapt their lives to their incomes, so why should people who DON'T work be exempt from this harsh reality?

BUT... (there's always a but)... people's situations are never black & white, so the only fair way to do it would be to individually and fairly assess each claim. but then the time spent on doing proper assessments would probably wipe out any savings made

i fully believe that something needs to be done to weed out the scroungers and the work shy, the layabouts who have 12 kids knowing 'the social' will pay. but lord knows how to actually go about doing it. hence why i am neither a sociologist nor a politician
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,280 Posts
There was a woman on Radio 5 last night who had 7 kids. I know what you are thinking but she had 7 kids with the same husband and everything was rosy until he died leaving her and the 7 kids financially in the mire. she's got 7 kids to look after so working isn't necesarily easy to manage.
the cynic in me would say her situation is her & her late husband's fault for failing to protect their family by having adequate life insurance. too many people put their sky tv subscription higher up their financial priority list than protecting their family
 
K

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
the cynic in me would say her situation is her & her late husband's fault for failing to protect their family by having adequate life insurance. too many people put their sky tv subscription higher up their financial priority list than protecting their family
Is there a bit of you that isn't a cynic?

I know exactly what you're saying and I had the same thought, but we can't just leave them high and dry can we? It was the Minister's comment about changing your circumstances that got me rather than the woman's circumstances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,977 Posts
I believe the Victorians had a answer - they called it the workhouse. Not a pleasant institution and carrying social stigma. While certain behaviour is unstigmatised it will continue, make it socially unacceptable and it will eventually die out, or reduce to more manageable levels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,126 Posts
I think £26K is a very generous level for a cap on benefits. There are plenty of very hardworking people out there who can only dream of earning that much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,280 Posts
I believe the Victorians had a answer - they called it the workhouse. Not a pleasant institution and carrying social stigma. While certain behaviour is unstigmatised it will continue, make it socially unacceptable and it will eventually die out, or reduce to more manageable levels.
i see what you mean but haven't we moved on from the victorian era? the dark satanic mills, 7 day working week, TB...

i do think that the long term unemployed should be forced into carrying out some kind of work in order to get their benefits though. it benefits both sides - the taxpayer/community gets a return on their money and also the unemployed person gets back into a routine of getting up and doing something gainful with their day, and also it gives them something to stick on their cv
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,760 Posts
Benefit - A Govt provided safety net to keep a roof over your head and food on the table. Whilst you look for work.

Not for holidays, cars, flat screen TV, fags, branded clothes/shoes/trainers, booze, X Box, etc, etc. These are luxuries, which I have to save up for, or make a choice to have one or the other related to the amount I earn. New (to me) car or holiday, I can't afford both.

That some people think they have a RIGHT to have both provided, or all, for them, paid by others. This shows the fault in the system.

Yes, pay the rent/mortgage directly. Same for utilities. Issue food stamps/tokens/coupons to be used on food and then some (a little) spends for travel to interviews etc.

Life on benefit should not be comfy, it should be the bare minimum to encourage those who can't be bothered to work, into work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,747 Posts
26k per year is more than enough.

There are working families that survive on much less.

The majority of public opinion supports the cap, yet the Lords who are unelected decide to go against the majority.

How is that for democracy?

Don't get me wrong, there should be a safety net for those who find themselves in hard times through no fault of their own, but in no way should it be possible to get more on benefit than most families get through working. Or should they be able to live in a house that they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford.

Me and the Mrs both work full time and have a child, our combined take home pay isn't much more than 26k. Then we have to factor in childcare costs, transport etc and it would be easy to see why people don't bother working.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top