FabSwingers.com forum: housing benefit

By *reelove1969 OP Couple
over a year ago

bristol

heard an article today about housing benefit being capped at £500 and certain families in expensive London boroughs are having to up sticks and move to more affordable areas of the UK ..does this seem the right way to go ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

it may help them secure a better paying job and be less reliant on the benefit

good luck to them

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *verysmileMan
over a year ago

Canterbury

It will only put social and financial pressures on the social services/schools/hospitals/support networks in less expensive areas. These less expensive areas already have poorer families with less opportunity to work above the breadline (or at the living wage for modernists) .....that is why they are less expensive.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The benefits cap has already made people homeless.

Dunno if it's ok to make people move away from an area or not? I'm guessing provisions have been made so that people can move if they have to or are they just forcing people into poverty like they do with everything else?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *isscheekychopsWoman
over a year ago

The land of grey peas and bacon

It puts a strain on the other local authorities that they will be presenting to for housing. I work full time on a half decent wage and I can't even afford to move back to my home city of London. I do think it's about time they sorted out the whole HB issue as after all it is public money.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Social cleansing and disgusting.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It will only put social and financial pressures on the social services/schools/hospitals/support networks in less expensive areas. These less expensive areas already have poorer families with less opportunity to work above the breadline (or at the living wage for modernists) .....that is why they are less expensive.

Exactly. These places are cheap because everyone in them is already poor and businesses wouldn't survive if the area was expensive.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It puts a strain on the other local authorities that they will be presenting to for housing. I work full time on a half decent wage and I can't even afford to move back to my home city of London. I do think it's about time they sorted out the whole HB issue as after all it is public money. "

Same day they put cap on hb and also bedroom tax was same day the very well off all got over 140k tax rebate how can this be anything but disgraceful.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

£500.. i wish there were 2 bed places where i live for that kinda money. sadly not though

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It will put more pressure on the local council the only houses that will be above the housing benifit rate will be private rented, if you can't afford the rent and have children the council have to rehome you, God knows what people with no kids will do

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *reelove1969 OP Couple
over a year ago

bristol

I think they meant £ 500 per week

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ig1gaz1Man
over a year ago

bradford

"Social cleansing and disgusting. "

and social exclusion from family and friends

for those that are working they are even struggerling to make ends meet as well

most of the area is for the elite and rich to keep the riff raff out including the workers that are living close to the city

cant get much closer than a north south divide when you are priced out of a home or even the rent to pay

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *isscheekychopsWoman
over a year ago

The land of grey peas and bacon

"I think they meant £ 500 per week "

It will be £500 a week in London for LHA they look at market rent to determine how much HB is going to be awarded

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As I understand it, the cap is not directed at housing benefit. The £500 per week cap is on the benefits in total (or, at least, most benefits) that a couple can claim. A different cap applies to single people.

Its a difficult one. The welfare system is there to support people facing difficult times. On the other hand, rental prices in London are exorbitant so I can see some sense in putting pressure on people claiming benefits to move elsewhere. I don't like sounding inhumane though.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *radleyandRavenCouple
over a year ago

Herts

"As I understand it, the cap is not directed at housing benefit. The £500 per week cap is on the benefits in total (or, at least, most benefits) that a couple can claim. A different cap applies to single people.

This. Rent prices in London are insane and although it may not be ideal, the councils will obviously be looking at reducing the amount of money they have to pay.

I wouldn't want to live in London anyway but my opinion is this:

Many working people who DON'T qualify for help can't afford to live in London and often live on the outskirts, commuting in. I don't see why people who recieve housing benefit wouldn't/shouldn't be affected in the same way.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If we moved back to London our rent would more tgan double. We earn more than average wages. We know people paying 5 or 6 hundred for a room in a shared house in zone 4 and I know more and more people doing what we've done.

London rents are ridiculous but it is the landlords making all the money from housing benefit. It's not sustainable but it is the extortionate rents needing challenging, uprooting people should be an option but not forced on people.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oxy_minxWoman
over a year ago

Scotland - Aberdeen

"It will put more pressure on the local council the only houses that will be above the housing benifit rate will be private rented, if you can't afford the rent and have children the council have to rehome you, God knows what people with no kids will do "

Be completely ignored or told to get pregnant as I was told when I was 17! Ok was a long time ago now, but that is what a council worker told me to do

People without children will always be overlooked I'm afraid.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *educedWoman
over a year ago

Birmingham

We will see more and more gentrification and more homeless young people when these changes to housing benefit come into affect. Local authorities are no longer equipped to deal with this and third sector organisations are already struggling under the strain.

We will also see the the introduction of a pre paid card for those claiming means tested benefits which can only be spent at certain shops. No cash. So, those on benefits will not be able to shop at second hand shops, pay for bus fares or buy cheaper produce at the markets etc.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Be completely ignored or told to get pregnant as I was told when I was 17! Ok was a long time ago now, but that is what a council worker told me to do

People without children will always be overlooked I'm afraid."

My cousin was told the same about a year ago so sadly nothing has changed.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This. Rent prices in London are insane and although it may not be ideal, the councils will obviously be looking at reducing the amount of money they have to pay.

I wouldn't want to live in London anyway but my opinion is this:

I have to agree, it's a really difficult one

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Social cleansing and disgusting. "

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

The effect of this and the thrust for councils to sell their most expensive properties (albeit expensive because of where they are located) is social cleansing. Put all the poor into a ghetto (most likely to be in the north of the country and it's possible to live within the benefits constraints the further away from London and the SE you get). Is that really what people want for the country?

The subsidy of public funds to buy a property isn't called housing benefit (why not?) and thought of as a great thing by those trying to buy. It's still public money so if we're going to give that out lets put all of them in an enclave of cheaper housing areas too.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *alcon43Woman
over a year ago

Paisley

If they force all the low paid workers who rely on benefits to help pay their rent away from the centre of London who will clean the offices, hospitals, etc , provide personal care for the elderly and all the other low paid jobs?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"If they force all the low paid workers who rely on benefits to help pay their rent away from the centre of London who will clean the offices, hospitals, etc , provide personal care for the elderly and all the other low paid jobs?"

They will all live in one room paying for shared beds (already happening in some parts of London). Or, the wages will have to increase to cover the cost of people commuting.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I work and receive no benefits, I live where I live because that's what I can afford. If I lost some of my income I'd find somewhere cheaper.

I wouldn't expect to behave any differently on benefits.

Benefits should be enough to meet your basic living expenses, if your getting more benefits than you need and can afford to live somewhere that I can't then to me that is the real issue.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

Be completely ignored or told to get pregnant as I was told when I was 17! Ok was a long time ago now, but that is what a council worker told me to do

People without children will always be overlooked I'm afraid."

Did he tell you to get pregnant, or offer to get you pregnant?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes why should the tax payer have to pay for someone to be unemployed in an area most employed people can't afford to live?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Wrong move where people have no choice. Families often rely on their support networks, for child help etc, which all helps gain and retain employment. Pushing people to new areas, kids to new schools, disenfranchising them from support and current jobs is madness. It creates more problems downstream.

Better to build the economy, get rent controls, living wages and secure jobs.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Would be a good start by controlling overall population and/or growth in the first place.

Radical thought : If i couldn't afford to live in London, i can't (working or not), i'd come home.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Wouldn't be an issue if there was more social housing, I don't understand the attitude that people should be shunted around the country, kids uprooted from schools, families fragmented because of private landlords btl overheads.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Wouldn't be an issue if there was more social housing, I don't understand the attitude that people should be shunted around the country, kids uprooted from schools, families fragmented because of private landlords btl overheads."

I don't understand the attitude of "I want to live somewhere I can't afford so everyone else should pay for me to live there"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *reedy_for_funCouple
over a year ago

My House

Islington Council in London bought a load of flats/houses in Colchester and gave people the choice to move. It's more affordable housing than Islington, cheaper houses so Islington save money so the tenants save money; it's a brand new housing estate, better local schools with less deprivation. As far as we know no one was forced to move but we don't much

As for this:
""I don't understand the attitude of "I want to live somewhere I can't afford so everyone else should pay for me to live there""
That's an incredibly short sighted attitude which totally ignores the issues at hand. People move to cities like London to try to get a job/better job because cities tend to have the highest level of employment. If you want to blame anyone (very simple explanation coming up here); blame the landlords who charge too much for shitty housing forcing councils to pay over the odds for poor accommodation or blame the tories in the 80's who deemed it sensible to sell off the council homes and then neglect to build any more (as well as your water, electricity, railways, gas, oil, telephones etc).

I'm sure you live in a nice house, have a nice job (earning lots of money) and have a great education. If only everyone was as intelligent as you, capable of getting a great paying job. However, in the real world, not everyone is that intelligent, not that skilled, not that capable. Not everyone can earn tens of thousands a year. Someone has to be the cook, the cleaner, the mailman etc. Do you expect them to be as highly paid as the engineer, technician, bank manager? No? Then where do you want them to live when they're not cleaning your toilets at work, or cooking your canteen food etc? Cardboard boxes perhaps, that's affordable right? Or maybe we should revert back to the good old Victorian days and have 10 families to a house, no schools (costs you tax money you know), starving children (let them eat cake!) and so forth.

There is no simple explanation, no simple solution. However, it starts with the government (regardless of colour) being brave enough to spend money on huge social housing projects, therefore breaking the cycle of expensive rentals, saving money over the long term (reduces housing benefit bills etc). No more 'right to buy', but I do agree with council tenants being means-tested every 3 years to see if their situation as improved enough so it can result in their either renting privately or buying a home instead of living off the state.

It's late, i'm tired and I haven't really explained myself very well, but the idea is there

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Which completely flies in the face of the argument that this is wrong because it's moving people away from their friends and family.

If they moved there for work but remained unemployed so long they ended up with lots of friends and family and ties there then it shows they failed to find work and so should be moved out so that someone else can have a go at staying there and finding work.

All keeping them there does is tie up a house that could be used by someone who does actually work there

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Do you expect them to be as highly paid as the engineer, technician, bank manager? No? Then where do you want them to live when they're not cleaning your toilets at work, or cooking your canteen food etc? Cardboard boxes perhaps, that's affordable right? Or maybe we should revert back to the good old Victorian days and have 10 families to a house, no schools (costs you tax money you know), starving children (let them eat cake!) and so forth."

They tend to live in the same area as the rest of us skilled labourers.

Ie not fucking London.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"However, it starts with the government (regardless of colour) being brave enough to spend money on huge social housing projects"

I don't think ghettos have ever been the solution have they?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *radleyandRavenCouple
over a year ago

Herts

"As for this: "I don't understand the attitude of "I want to live somewhere I can't afford so everyone else should pay for me to live there"

That's an incredibly short sighted attitude which totally ignores the issues at hand. People move to cities like London to try to get a job/better job because cities tend to have the highest level of employment."

Again, as much as I understand what you're trying to say, many working people who DON'T qualify for housing benefit can't afford to live in London either. So what do they do if they want to work there? - They commute.

People on housing benefit shouldn't be exempt from being expected to do the same.

And no, we don't live in a nice house with nice jobs who sit there counting our money while we laugh at the poor. I commute over an hour to London for a retail job. I'm sure cleaners/canteen workers, etc can do the same.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *radleyandRavenCouple
over a year ago

Herts

"As for this: "I don't understand the attitude of "I want to live somewhere I can't afford so everyone else should pay for me to live there"

People on housing benefit shouldn't be exempt from being expected to do the same.

And no, we don't live in a nice house with nice jobs who sit there counting our money while we laugh at the poor. I *used to commute over an hour to London for a retail job. I'm sure cleaners/canteen workers, etc can do the same."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford

"heard an article today about housing benefit being capped at £500 and certain families in expensive London boroughs are having to up sticks and move to more affordable areas of the UK ..does this seem the right way to go ?"
How many private tenants can afford these rents ?Why should those on benefits have the privilege of having their rents subsidised . No one compels them to live in an expensive area. I only buy what I can afford . Why should we subsidise them?.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The high rents in London, who is paying them for normal houses?

The landlords put the prices up but the people with jobs cannot afford to pay and move somewhere less expensive. So the only people that "pay" for the rents are the unemployed!!!!

That's not fair on the hard working people that have to get up so early so that they commute even further to get to work while passing all those houses with their lights still off as they are snug in bed!!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"heard an article today about housing benefit being capped at £500 and certain families in expensive London boroughs are having to up sticks and move to more affordable areas of the UK ..does this seem the right way to go ? How many private tenants can afford these rents ?Why should those on benefits have the privilege of having their rents subsidised . No one compels them to live in an expensive area. I only buy what I can afford . Why should we subsidise them?. "
So the Unemployed should be moved out of London, Where would you have them Housed,Cardboard Cities?

Gimp

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"£500.. i wish there were 2 bed places where i live for that kinda money. sadly not though "

Its not a HB cap. Its a benefit cap of £500 a week including HB and council tax. Anyone on disability isn't affected.

HB is paid 2/4 weekly. So worse case scenario even in London I would imagine is that someone gets 150/200 a week to live on after there rent is paid.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"heard an article today about housing benefit being capped at £500 and certain families in expensive London boroughs are having to up sticks and move to more affordable areas of the UK ..does this seem the right way to go ? How many private tenants can afford these rents ?Why should those on benefits have the privilege of having their rents subsidised . No one compels them to live in an expensive area. I only buy what I can afford . Why should we subsidise them?. So the Unemployed should be moved out of London, Where would you have them Housed,Cardboard Cities?

Gimp"

The rest of the country?

Believe it or not there's quite a lot of towns and cities outside of London. Hard to believe I know but it is true.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"heard an article today about housing benefit being capped at £500 and certain families in expensive London boroughs are having to up sticks and move to more affordable areas of the UK ..does this seem the right way to go ? How many private tenants can afford these rents ?Why should those on benefits have the privilege of having their rents subsidised . No one compels them to live in an expensive area. I only buy what I can afford . Why should we subsidise them?. So the Unemployed should be moved out of London, Where would you have them Housed,Cardboard Cities?

Gimp

The rest of the country?

Believe it or not there's quite a lot of towns and cities outside of London. Hard to believe I know but it is true."

My point was about being moved away because someone becomes unemployed.

Gimp

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Mr Gimp you obviously don't get it, you see if you were say one of those City Link drivers made redundant on Christmas eve up until that point you were a hard working pay your taxes striver...once you become unemployed overnight you automatically have no worth or value, you're a parasite living off the hard working tax paying stivers, you're not allowed to keep your dignity that's the preserve of the strivers you should be grateful for your bowl of gruel and fuck off out of sight...apparently.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's a difficult one, makes sense though in many ways, as they're trying to cut public spending.

The main culprits of course are the private landlords. There needs to be much tighter regulation on the rents they're allowed to charge. Plus clamping down on the unscrupulous ones. Cities like London are rife with them.

There are no easy answers unfortunately .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oole2010Couple
over a year ago

southampto

"Islington Council in London bought a load of flats/houses in Colchester and gave people the choice to move. It's more affordable housing than Islington, cheaper houses so Islington save money so the tenants save money; it's a brand new housing estate, better local schools with less deprivation. As far as we know no one was forced to move but we don't much

As for this: "I don't understand the attitude of "I want to live somewhere I can't afford so everyone else should pay for me to live there" That's an incredibly short sighted attitude which totally ignores the issues at hand. People move to cities like London to try to get a job/better job because cities tend to have the highest level of employment. If you want to blame anyone (very simple explanation coming up here); blame the landlords who charge too much for shitty housing forcing councils to pay over the odds for poor accommodation or blame the tories in the 80's who deemed it sensible to sell off the council homes and then neglect to build any more (as well as your water, electricity, railways, gas, oil, telephones etc).

It's late, i'm tired and I haven't really explained myself very well, but the idea is there

I dont think the 3 year rule would be fair, because if someone is unemployed in a council home then gets a job over the 3 years he/she gets promotions and pay rises then is told to move out because they tried to make a better life for the family what sort of message does that give people to better themselves?.

And if he/she is working, he/she will probably be paying full rent and council tax,

The rent may be subsidised, but at least it wont cost as.much as moving them out and putting people in their property that have no intention of working and getting everything paid for by the government/councils.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It's a difficult one, makes sense though in many ways, as they're trying to cut public spending.

There are no easy answers unfortunately . "

It is too easy to blame those "unscrupulous" landlords. Someone buying a property in London is going to have to spend a fortune. They will probably have to pay a massive mortgage. The rent they charge will have to be equally horrific.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

We should be seeing a saving soon then.

50,000 Londoners have been shipped out of the capital due to increasing rents and cuts.

If anyone has been to central London lately you'll know there's no shortage of building going on, yet none of it is affordable housing (from what I can tell anyway).

Victoria is being transformed along with Nine Elms, Pimlico & Westminster are sprouting new buildings every week, the same with Fitzrovia and other neighbourhoods.

If you're a service worker in those areas; retail, hospitality etc, they want you working there to service their needs but don't dare think you could live there. Shirley Porter's legacy is making a comeback.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"It's a difficult one, makes sense though in many ways, as they're trying to cut public spending.

There are no easy answers unfortunately .

That's to miss the point. Someone 'spending a fortune' to buy a property with a massive mortgage has made that choice.

To expect the taxpayer to subsidise their greed isn't on.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

Tenbury Wells

"The benefits cap has already made people homeless.

It's shitty

So obversly

Let's also stop rich employed people buying up all the cheaper housing in poorer areas thus making the locals priced out of the housing market

Yeah I'm all for that

Vote for me lol

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ngel n tedCouple
over a year ago

maidstone

lol at the government treating it's people like shit (rich exempt of course)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The benefits cap has already made people homeless.

It's shitty

So obversly

Let's also stop rich employed people buying up all the cheaper housing in poorer areas thus making the locals priced out of the housing market

Yeah I'm all for that

Vote for me lol "

You've got my vote.

Don't bring in a sex tax though, else i'll be bankrupt.

-------------------------------------

Noticed references to victorian era. Am sure the conservatives wanted to go back to victorian values and have said that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *radleyandRavenCouple
over a year ago

Herts

"It's a difficult one, makes sense though in many ways, as they're trying to cut public spending.

There are no easy answers unfortunately .

That's to miss the point. Someone 'spending a fortune' to buy a property with a massive mortgage has made that choice.

To expect the taxpayer to subsidise their greed isn't on."

But then that could be seen both ways. Nobody is forcing benefit-receiving and non-benefit-receiving people to live in London and pay that rediculous rate.

They have made that choice.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It's a difficult one, makes sense though in many ways, as they're trying to cut public spending.

There are no easy answers unfortunately .

That's to miss the point. Someone 'spending a fortune' to buy a property with a massive mortgage has made that choice.

To expect the taxpayer to subsidise their greed isn't on."

It wasn't the point I was making. The landlord charges an exorbitant amount because the property cost an exorbitant amount. I am sure that a major percentage (not all) of landlords do not invest in property in the expectation of the rent being met through housing benefit.

As far as London is concerned, the issue is that there are so many people living there (with many earning a lot of money) that property prices have become so inflated that most of us could never afford to live there. Tokyo is the same.

It is easy to say, "Your choice. If you cannot afford it, move out." On the other hand, London needs labour to make it work.

Is there a solution?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley

Let's create an underclass and then watch it tear itself apart from crime related to relative deprivation...great idea; we'll soon have them all in prison and housing benefit will seem like a bargain in comparison!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

Tenbury Wells

"The benefits cap has already made people homeless.

It's shitty

So obversly

Let's also stop rich employed people buying up all the cheaper housing in poorer areas thus making the locals priced out of the housing market

Yeah I'm all for that

Vote for me lol

You've got my vote.

Don't bring in a sex tax though, else i'll be bankrupt.

-------------------------------------

Noticed references to victorian era. Am sure the conservatives wanted to go back to victorian values and have said that."

The sex tax is voted off my manifesto guaranteed

But yes the Conservatives only want themselves to get richer at the expense of the rest

Who do the majority of landowners vote for incidentally

Think about it

Vote for me lol

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 01/05/15 17:34:48]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Let's create an underclass and then watch it tear itself apart from crime related to relative deprivation...great idea; we'll soon have them all in prison and housing benefit will seem like a bargain in comparison!"

I've been brought up underclass. We're actually pretty tight and stick together, it's essential to survive.

And, tbh, i've seen better morals in this class than any other. We just don't have money.

And yay no sex tax, know who i'm voting for.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

The OP is wrong. This is about the overall benefits cap being £25,000 per year (£500 per week).

I am not sure that many would complain if their housing benefit alone was £2,000 a month.

Also, do we not think that it is right to reduce the ability of people who do nothing getting £25,000 a year tax free? That would equate to a salary of around £35,000 a year.... for doing nothing.

We all have to make decisions and compromises about where we choose to live and work.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

Tenbury Wells

Actually I think you'll find the prisons have been filled with rich privileged private school educated MP's recently lol

Jeffrey Archer

And others similar

Yay

Own goal

Vote labour

Vote for me haha

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

Also, do we not think that it is right to reduce the ability of people who do nothing getting £25,000 a year tax free? That would equate to a salary of around £35,000 a year.... for doing nothing.

How many benefits claimants do nothing?

What % are bogus claims?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The OP is wrong. This is about the overall benefits cap being £25,000 per year (£500 per week).

I am not sure that many would complain if their housing benefit alone was £2,000 a month.

Also, do we not think that it is right to reduce the ability of people who do nothing getting £25,000 a year tax free? That would equate to a salary of around £35,000 a year.... for doing nothing.

We all have to make decisions and compromises about where we choose to live and work."

This.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

Tenbury Wells

I've been brought up underclass. We're actually pretty tight and stick together, it's essential to survive.

And, tbh, i've seen better morals in this class than any other. We just don't have money.

And yay no sex tax, know who i'm voting for."

Indeed

When I grew up we had nothing to nick

Nothing left over

And we shared everything with everyone who we knew who were like us

Vote for me lol

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've been brought up underclass. We're actually pretty tight and stick together, it's essential to survive.

And, tbh, i've seen better morals in this class than any other. We just don't have money.

And yay no sex tax, know who i'm voting for.

Indeed

When I grew up we had nothing to nick

Nothing left over

And we shared everything with everyone who we knew who were like us

Vote for me lol "

So tempted to cross everyone off the ballot and replace a name with:

Slutseekingcuckoldbf Of Fabswingers party.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah underclass as they're given the equivalent of a 35k a year salary.

You really think it's overly harsh to limit benefits to 130% of the average salary?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

Tenbury Wells

Yeah underclass as they're given the equivalent of a 35k a year salary.

You really think it's overly harsh to limit benefits to 130% of the average salary?"

I volunteer in my local homeless hostel

Most of those get £58 every two weeks

A real kings ransom

Not!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sorry

But I think those who don't want to work should have benefits stopped.

Those who are Ill or disabled no issue then if they can't work

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah underclass as they're given the equivalent of a 35k a year salary.

You really think it's overly harsh to limit benefits to 130% of the average salary?"

Benefits cap (for families, it's less for those who have no kids) is already set at £500 a week, or £26,000 a year. "About 27,000 families (less than 1% of working-age families receiving housing benefit) were being capped once the policy was fully rolled out in late 2013, with their benefit income reduced by a total of about £100 million per year. Essentially all the families who receive enough benefit income for the cap to be binding have a large number of children or high rents (and often both)." Got the from the ifs site, won't post a link else i get banned for spamming.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe

I agree with the principle of a benefit cap BUT it should be on basic benefits and not include housing. It is unfair that a person who has worked and been able to afford to live in an area for many years, is no longer able to do so if they become unemployed and is not able to find another in the six month window allowed. Not being able to find work doesn't mean you are lazy - there are many reasons a person may be unable to get back into employment - age being a big factor.

Housing Benefits could be paid based on regional variations, with a rent increase cap placed on all landlords.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley

Yeah underclass as they're given the equivalent of a 35k a year salary.

You really think it's overly harsh to limit benefits to 130% of the average salary?"

Who are you kidding? They don't see the HB and very few claimants are receiving £10k/annum!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley

I've been brought up underclass. We're actually pretty tight and stick together, it's essential to survive.

And, tbh, i've seen better morals in this class than any other. We just don't have money.

And yay no sex tax, know who i'm voting for."

Working class/poor and underclass aren't the same.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

in the isle of man housing benifit cap £140 a week that's it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Fuck me capped at £500 how much did they get

I would like to earn £500 per week every week and not have to do any work

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"in the isle of man housing benifit cap £140 a week that's it"

Fuck me £140 a week and not working I would do that as well

Seems like I chose the wrong career

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

Yeah underclass as they're given the equivalent of a 35k a year salary.

You really think it's overly harsh to limit benefits to 130% of the average salary?

Who are you kidding? They don't see the HB and very few claimants are receiving £10k/annum!"

Someone who is working pays their rent/mortgage from their salary. The only difference is that HB is taken at source and calculated from the benefit pot.

There is nothing wrong with limiting the total benefit credit that someone gets.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

And what do we do with the children of the families that people want to see on the streets?

Stop the benefits by all means - turf the kids out too?

If anyone has the figure for % of benefits claims that are bogus then I could quickly crunch some numbers based on current figures.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah underclass as they're given the equivalent of a 35k a year salary.

You really think it's overly harsh to limit benefits to 130% of the average salary?

Who are you kidding? They don't see the HB and very few claimants are receiving £10k/annum!"

Then they won't be affected by the 25k a year cap will they.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"And what do we do with the children of the families that people want to see on the streets?

Most people don't want them on the streets just in a house that's not in an incredibly expensive area.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah underclass as they're given the equivalent of a 35k a year salary.

You really think it's overly harsh to limit benefits to 130% of the average salary?

Perhaps a course on correct use of contraception would have been more beneficial to them than throwing money at them for years...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

"And what do we do with the children of the families that people want to see on the streets?

Most people don't want them on the streets just in a house that's not in an incredibly expensive area.

A lot of people want to see the benefits of people who 'do nothing' to be stopped. Various posts above have said so.

Fine - what happens to the children of those families?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've been brought up underclass. We're actually pretty tight and stick together, it's essential to survive.

And, tbh, i've seen better morals in this class than any other. We just don't have money.

And yay no sex tax, know who i'm voting for.

Working class/poor and underclass aren't the same."

I know.

The underclass are those who come from generations of proletariats who have had everything shut down around them. There's laws there to try and keep them in check and try to force them to put up with their lot so the others can profit from them or control their lives or abuse them even. Got their own system outside of politics and it works for them.

When this system fucks us over we opt out of it. Can't survive without it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ot monkey71Couple
over a year ago

middlesbrough

In a word no, but it hasn't stopped all the other policy's that have been brought in to punish the poor. The amount of deaths attributed to iain Duncan smiths policy's is shocking.

Interesting fact, you can do more hours unpaid work to earn your benefits than a criminal would legally be allowed to have imposed on them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

"And what do we do with the children of the families that people want to see on the streets?

Most people don't want them on the streets just in a house that's not in an incredibly expensive area.

A lot of people want to see the benefits of people who 'do nothing' to be stopped. Various posts above have said so.

Fine - what happens to the children of those families? "

If the cap on benefit cap means that the family has to make changes to their lifestyle including but not limited to... Working longer hours, undertaking training to improve their skills, changing job, moving home or whatever responsible parents need to do to protect and care for their own children.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

Tenbury Wells

Yeah underclass as they're given the equivalent of a 35k a year salary.

You really think it's overly harsh to limit benefits to 130% of the average salary?

Perhaps a course on correct use of contraception would have been more beneficial to them than throwing money at them for years..."

So people who work and loose their jobs and struggle to get work and have a pregnant wife or children already and who have always paid tax

They deserve nothing do they

How refreshing it is to see who will share their genitalia with others willingly

But they're less willing to support people going through difficult times

Jesus

Give me people with a social conscience every day of the bleeding week

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"And what do we do with the children of the families that people want to see on the streets?

Most people don't want them on the streets just in a house that's not in an incredibly expensive area.

A lot of people want to see the benefits of people who 'do nothing' to be stopped. Various posts above have said so.

Fine - what happens to the children of those families? "

What answer do you want your clearly fishing for a specific one.

But how about you answer what do you want for these children?

Do you want them to grow up and repeat the same choices their parents made so we then have to fun their unemployment and thier kids and then their kids unemployment and their grand kids and so on and so on.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah underclass as they're given the equivalent of a 35k a year salary.

You really think it's overly harsh to limit benefits to 130% of the average salary?

Perhaps a course on correct use of contraception would have been more beneficial to them than throwing money at them for years...

So people who work and loose their jobs and struggle to get work and have a pregnant wife or children already and who have always paid tax

They deserve nothing do they

How refreshing it is to see who will share their genitalia with others willingly

But they're less willing to support people going through difficult times

Jesus

Give me people with a social conscience every day of the bleeding week

Large number of children would strongly imply it was not a freak loss of job during pregnancy wouldn't it?

And still the point would stand.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

Tenbury Wells

Yeah underclass as they're given the equivalent of a 35k a year salary.

You really think it's overly harsh to limit benefits to 130% of the average salary?

Perhaps a course on correct use of contraception would have been more beneficial to them than throwing money at them for years...

So people who work and loose their jobs and struggle to get work and have a pregnant wife or children already and who have always paid tax

They deserve nothing do they

How refreshing it is to see who will share their genitalia with others willingly

But they're less willing to support people going through difficult times

Jesus

Give me people with a social conscience every day of the bleeding week

Large number of children would strongly imply it was not a freak loss of job during pregnancy wouldn't it?

And still the point would stand."

You've been listening to Farage too much

And my point still stands

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"...why should the tax payer have to pay for someone to be unemployed in an area most employed people can't afford to live?"

I'm in this boat. I believe in the short term when people need benefit help, of course they shouldn't be asked to move. But in the case of people living on benefits year in year out at taxpayer expense, in an area where the vast majority of the very tax payers that foot the benefit bill can't afford to live - seems a bit daft to me that anyone would expect that to be a viable solution.

We both work and make pretty good money and WE can't afford to live in London where our friends and family are - we'd LIKE to - but we can't bloody well afford to. That's reality. We had to suck it up and so should the people we support long term with our hard-earned money. I don't think that's callous - I think it's FAIR.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's not just in London,the cap is £500 where ever you live x

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

How much is the benefit cap?

The level of the cap is:

£500 a week for couples (with or without children living with them)

£500 a week for single parents whose children live with them

£350 a week for single adults who don’t have children, or whose children don’t live with them

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

What answer do you want your clearly fishing for a specific one.

But how about you answer what do you want for these children?

*you're

Of course I'd like an answer otherwise I wouldn't ask the question. If 'shirkers' are to have their benefits stopped, as people have suggested they'd like to see, then I want to know what would happen to the kids of those families.

The only options I can think of would be to make the children destitute along with the parent(s), or put them into care, which would cost more than benefits ever would.

But maybe the people wanting benefits stopped have other ideas beyond those two.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What answer do you want your clearly fishing for a specific one.

But how about you answer what do you want for these children?

*you're

The only options I can think of would be to make the children destitute along with the parent(s), or put them into care, which would cost more than benefits ever would.

But maybe the people wanting benefits stopped have other ideas beyond those two. "

Avoiding the problem of it now being a reoccurring issue I see?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah underclass as they're given the equivalent of a 35k a year salary.

You really think it's overly harsh to limit benefits to 130% of the average salary?

Perhaps a course on correct use of contraception would have been more beneficial to them than throwing money at them for years...

So people who work and loose their jobs and struggle to get work and have a pregnant wife or children already and who have always paid tax

They deserve nothing do they

How refreshing it is to see who will share their genitalia with others willingly

But they're less willing to support people going through difficult times

Jesus

Give me people with a social conscience every day of the bleeding week

Large number of children would strongly imply it was not a freak loss of job during pregnancy wouldn't it?

And still the point would stand.

You've been listening to Farage too much

And my point still stands "

Never listened to a single word he's said.

Has he started a new policy of improved sexual and family planning education?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

Tenbury Wells

They'll be bringing back the workhouses next

Women

Men

Children

All in separate buildings

Even families

Kids deported to Australia for stealing bread

Work until you die or pay off your debts

Unlike the rich of course who simply file for bankruptcy and set up another company

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

Tenbury Wells

Yeah underclass as they're given the equivalent of a 35k a year salary.

You really think it's overly harsh to limit benefits to 130% of the average salary?

Perhaps a course on correct use of contraception would have been more beneficial to them than throwing money at them for years...

So people who work and loose their jobs and struggle to get work and have a pregnant wife or children already and who have always paid tax

They deserve nothing do they

How refreshing it is to see who will share their genitalia with others willingly

But they're less willing to support people going through difficult times

Jesus

Give me people with a social conscience every day of the bleeding week

Large number of children would strongly imply it was not a freak loss of job during pregnancy wouldn't it?

And still the point would stand.

You've been listening to Farage too much

And my point still stands

Never listened to a single word he's said.

Has he started a new policy of improved sexual and family planning education?

No he tells lies

Scaremongering

I hope you loose your job

See what it feels like

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People need to remember that people on benefits don;t receive hpusing benefit their landlords do. And there are landlords literally raking in hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in housing benefit by charging ridiculous rents fr often sub standard property.

The poor get demonised and the rich get richer

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

Tenbury Wells

"People need to remember that people on benefits don;t receive hpusing benefit their landlords do. And there are landlords literally raking in hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in housing benefit by charging ridiculous rents fr often sub standard property.

The poor get demonised and the rich get richer"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah underclass as they're given the equivalent of a 35k a year salary.

You really think it's overly harsh to limit benefits to 130% of the average salary?

Perhaps a course on correct use of contraception would have been more beneficial to them than throwing money at them for years..."

I've been pregnant twice from being on the pill. Apparently the first one wasn't suitable for me, i had breakthrough bleeds which can be normal but can also mean the pill isn't working. As a non-professional myself i was offered a different pill and that one didn't work either. I was actually offered to try another pill after this...i declined and just stopped having sex.

When pregnant with my 4th child i did consider an abortion but couldn't go through with it. You can't force people to not be human and not have feelings, not yet anyway.

Oh and my 2nd 'baby daddy' was working at the time, worked his way up to a managerial position until we got a conservative council and the rent went up so the business closed down. He's doing voluntary work now, so working for nothing because this government will stop his crap amount of money if he doesn't. He's applying for genuine, paid jobs while doing this.

Everything needs to change. I don't think this system is sustainable at all. Poor people aren't gonna die off in huge numbers and they shouldn't be expected to.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

What answer do you want your clearly fishing for a specific one.

But how about you answer what do you want for these children?

*you're

The only options I can think of would be to make the children destitute along with the parent(s), or put them into care, which would cost more than benefits ever would.

But maybe the people wanting benefits stopped have other ideas beyond those two.

Avoiding the problem of it now being a reoccurring issue I see?"

If you have any verified evidence to suggest that severe punitive actions taken against a child's family increases their likelihood to not follow a pattern of behaviour then I'd like to see it - feel free to PM a link. IDS can use it too for his workhouse programme.

Making them destitute or to put them into care would do little to help them in my opinion.

Giving a child every possible opportunity to flourish, a safe and stable home, a comprehensive education, instilling in them a sense of confidence and hope for the future seems the best way to me to break the cycle.

If stopping benefits does that then roll it out.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What answer do you want your clearly fishing for a specific one.

But how about you answer what do you want for these children?

*you're

The only options I can think of would be to make the children destitute along with the parent(s), or put them into care, which would cost more than benefits ever would.

But maybe the people wanting benefits stopped have other ideas beyond those two.

Avoiding the problem of it now being a reoccurring issue I see?

Making them destitute or to put them into care would do little to help them in my opinion.

If stopping benefits does that then roll it out. "

Again I've not proposed serve punitive actions.

I'm saying what's your solution to preventing it becoming a trap where generations get stuck in the same pattern.

Because what you said there isn't reality the children in these homes rarely flourish because there's very little motivation or drive from the parents for them to grow up get a good job and nor just get a partner and have a kid at 17 and get a free house like the mum and dad did.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The poor get demonised and the rich get richer"

That's like saying people on benefits don't receive thier job seekers tesco and whoever else they buy stuff off does.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

The poor get demonised and the rich get richer"

So do you support the idea of uncapped benefits whereby the long term unemployable basically get given free housing and as much cash as they want to live off?

The current cap of £26,000 a year is equivalent to a gross salary of around £35,000 a year. Presumably you think it should be more and thereby even further reduce the motivation to get off the benefit cycle? Let's be honest here, who would want to give up £35,000 a year for doing nothing if the alternative was working and getting less.

It is irrelevant who the housing benefit goes to, but it suits your argument to suggest to target private landlords.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah underclass as they're given the equivalent of a 35k a year salary.

You really think it's overly harsh to limit benefits to 130% of the average salary?

Perhaps a course on correct use of contraception would have been more beneficial to them than throwing money at them for years...

So people who work and loose their jobs and struggle to get work and have a pregnant wife or children already and who have always paid tax

They deserve nothing do they

How refreshing it is to see who will share their genitalia with others willingly

But they're less willing to support people going through difficult times

Jesus

Give me people with a social conscience every day of the bleeding week

Large number of children would strongly imply it was not a freak loss of job during pregnancy wouldn't it?

And still the point would stand.

You've been listening to Farage too much

And my point still stands

Never listened to a single word he's said.

Has he started a new policy of improved sexual and family planning education?

No he tells lies

Scaremongering

I hope you loose your job

See what it feels like "

Arnt you delightful.

Not sure why your bringing up Farage in regard to family planning.

And I did lose my career due to illness I had to leave my degree and the future that would hold was off sick for a year before I decided to go work for sub minimum wage as an apprentice did 3 years hard graft and now have a new career. It's not the life I could of had but it's better than sitting waiting for someone to give me money then complaining they arnt giving me enough.

I hope you get a job and see what it feels like

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The poor get demonised and the rich get richer"

the top 1% pay 25% of all income tax

Bottom 50% of earners pay less than 10% of the total bill.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So do you support the idea of uncapped benefits whereby the long term unemployable basically get given free housing and as much cash as they want to live off?"

No i don't support politicians and the way they take so much. £70,000+ isn't enough for them to live off? Need to cap themselves.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ot monkey71Couple
over a year ago

middlesbrough

I would rather my taxes and ni were spent supporting those who need it than see them squandered away giving it to banks and the many other ways they filtered it off to make the rich richer.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

What answer do you want your clearly fishing for a specific one.

But how about you answer what do you want for these children?

*you're

The only options I can think of would be to make the children destitute along with the parent(s), or put them into care, which would cost more than benefits ever would.

But maybe the people wanting benefits stopped have other ideas beyond those two.

Avoiding the problem of it now being a reoccurring issue I see?

Making them destitute or to put them into care would do little to help them in my opinion.

If stopping benefits does that then roll it out.

Again I've not proposed serve punitive actions.

I'm saying what's your solution to preventing it becoming a trap where generations get stuck in the same pattern.

My post that you replied to was asking people who said they wanted benefits stopped what would happen to the children of those families. I didn't say that's what you want but that's what I was talking about.

If society/the government wants to break the cycle of entrenched 'shirkers' then the education system and other support services need to be in place to break it and have the resources required to do it.

The state shouldn't have to intervene in that way but the reality is that in some cases it has to because the parents aren't doing it at home.

People can stand and wag their finger in indignation but that doesn't solve the problem.

These families make up a tiny fraction of benefit claimants but every child matters and stopping benefits won't do anything to break the cycle in my opinion.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

"So do you support the idea of uncapped benefits whereby the long term unemployable basically get given free housing and as much cash as they want to live off?

No i don't support politicians and the way they take so much. £70,000+ isn't enough for them to live off? Need to cap themselves.

You need to keep up with the news... After the expenses scandal it was decided that The setting of an MP salary was to be set by an independent panel. The outcome was that the panel said MPs should be paid more than they are.

So the general public got what they wanted but then complained when the result was not what they wanted.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So do you support the idea of uncapped benefits whereby the long term unemployable basically get given free housing and as much cash as they want to live off?

No i don't support politicians and the way they take so much. £70,000+ isn't enough for them to live off? Need to cap themselves.

You don't think it's odd that the people we choose to run our country earn less than head teachers?

It's also why we end up with all these dodgy dealings as it's how they make money.

We should be paying a wage comparoble to an equal large corporation to attract the same standard of employee and I think that an my should forgo all other sources of income ie a very high wage but they are not allowed to be on any board of directors, not allowed to own stocks or shares or have any other source of financial income besides their wage to avoid conflicts of interest.

There's a reason we get shit leaders and it's because we pay at a level that no one capable of doing such a job would would even consider it.

Why run a country for what 150k a year when you could run a company for 15 million a year?

As the old saying goes pay peanuts get monkeys.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I would rather my taxes and ni were spent supporting those who need it than see them squandered away giving it to banks and the many other ways they filtered it off to make the rich richer.

Same here however the keyword is the ones who "need" it. Not the feckless.

I'm a great believer in having a social welfare system for people to fall back on when in need. What I don't believe in is supporting those who languish on benefits with no plan to get off them.

If you deserve benefits then you should get them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

"I would rather my taxes and ni were spent supporting those who need it than see them squandered away giving it to banks and the many other ways they filtered it off to make the rich richer.

Same here however the keyword is the ones who "need" it. Not the feckless.

I'm a great believer in having a social welfare system for people to fall back on when in need. What I don't believe in is supporting those who languish on benefits with no plan to get off them.

If you deserve benefits then you should get them. "

And if they have kids?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I would rather my taxes and ni were spent supporting those who need it than see them squandered away giving it to banks and the many other ways they filtered it off to make the rich richer.

You know we bought shares in the banks and stand to make billions in profit from that money?

Which can then do even more for the needy than if we'd let them fail and lost billions instead.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

What answer do you want your clearly fishing for a specific one.

But how about you answer what do you want for these children?

*you're

The only options I can think of would be to make the children destitute along with the parent(s), or put them into care, which would cost more than benefits ever would.

But maybe the people wanting benefits stopped have other ideas beyond those two.

Avoiding the problem of it now being a reoccurring issue I see?

Making them destitute or to put them into care would do little to help them in my opinion.

If stopping benefits does that then roll it out.

Again I've not proposed serve punitive actions.

I'm saying what's your solution to preventing it becoming a trap where generations get stuck in the same pattern.

The state shouldn't have to intervene in that way but the reality is that in some cases it has to because the parents aren't doing it at home.

People can stand and wag their finger in indignation but that doesn't solve the problem.

These families make up a tiny fraction of benefit claimants but every child matters and stopping benefits won't do anything to break the cycle in my opinion."

It is not about stopping benefits. The cap is the equivalent of a £35,000 a year salary for a single mother. That is hardly a level of poverty that will see children destitute.

The key responsibility that we all have is to take some personal responsibility for ourselves and our families. If by gradually reducing benefits and making work a more attractive option then hopefully parents can be motivated to set an example and show some responsibility. We live in a country of great opportunity but some people are so blinded by expectancy that they have no motivation to try to better themselves, look after themselves and take care of their own children.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I would rather my taxes and ni were spent supporting those who need it than see them squandered away giving it to banks and the many other ways they filtered it off to make the rich richer.

Same here however the keyword is the ones who "need" it. Not the feckless.

I'm a great believer in having a social welfare system for people to fall back on when in need. What I don't believe in is supporting those who languish on benefits with no plan to get off them.

If you deserve benefits then you should get them.

And if they have kids? "

Who the feckless?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

It is not about stopping benefits. The cap is the equivalent of a £35,000 a year salary for a single mother. That is hardly a level of poverty that will see children destitute.

I'm not talking about the cap!

People have said they want benefits stopped for people who don't deserve them or are 'shirkers'.

I'm asking, ok if that happens and it seems there's an appetite for it, then what happens to children of those families?

You're the only always talking about knock-on consequences about overtaxing the rich.

So I'm asking, what are the consequences for kids whose families have their benefits stopped if that's something people are pushing for?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So do you support the idea of uncapped benefits whereby the long term unemployable basically get given free housing and as much cash as they want to live off?

No i don't support politicians and the way they take so much. £70,000+ isn't enough for them to live off? Need to cap themselves.

So the general public got what they wanted but then complained when the result was not what they wanted."

Yes, independent...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

"I would rather my taxes and ni were spent supporting those who need it than see them squandered away giving it to banks and the many other ways they filtered it off to make the rich richer.

Same here however the keyword is the ones who "need" it. Not the feckless.

I'm a great believer in having a social welfare system for people to fall back on when in need. What I don't believe in is supporting those who languish on benefits with no plan to get off them.

If you deserve benefits then you should get them.

And if they have kids?

Who the feckless? "

Yeah, I'm sure some of these feckless have children.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

It is not about stopping benefits. The cap is the equivalent of a £35,000 a year salary for a single mother. That is hardly a level of poverty that will see children destitute.

I'm not talking about the cap!

People have said they want benefits stopped for people who don't deserve them or are 'shirkers'.

I'm asking, ok if that happens and it seems there's an appetite for it, then what happens to children of those families?

You're the only always talking about knock-on consequences about overtaxing the rich.

So I'm asking, what are the consequences for kids whose families have their benefits stopped if that's something people are pushing for? "

Unless I am mistaken, the thread is about the £500 per week benefit cap. No one is suggesting that all benefits are removed as that would just be stupid.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

Unless I am mistaken, the thread is about the £500 per week benefit cap. No one is suggesting that all benefits are removed as that would just be stupid. "

It's been mentioned a few times in the thread so I was just asking.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ot monkey71Couple
over a year ago

middlesbrough

"I would rather my taxes and ni were spent supporting those who need it than see them squandered away giving it to banks and the many other ways they filtered it off to make the rich richer.

Same here however the keyword is the ones who "need" it. Not the feckless.

I'm a great believer in having a social welfare system for people to fall back on when in need. What I don't believe in is supporting those who languish on benefits with no plan to get off them.

If you deserve benefits then you should get them. "

The feckless, such a derogatory term generated by politicians and the press and used by those lesser informed.

The feckless as you put it are also victims of the system, be it education or just circumstance.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I would rather my taxes and ni were spent supporting those who need it than see them squandered away giving it to banks and the many other ways they filtered it off to make the rich richer.

Same here however the keyword is the ones who "need" it. Not the feckless.

I'm a great believer in having a social welfare system for people to fall back on when in need. What I don't believe in is supporting those who languish on benefits with no plan to get off them.

If you deserve benefits then you should get them.

And if they have kids?

Who the feckless?

Yeah, I'm sure some of these feckless have children. "

A veritable Catch 22 but at the end of the day children should be looked after. As I said I believe in Welfare but would rather those that didn't deserve it not get it but if it was paid in the interests of a family then so be it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I would rather my taxes and ni were spent supporting those who need it than see them squandered away giving it to banks and the many other ways they filtered it off to make the rich richer.

Same here however the keyword is the ones who "need" it. Not the feckless.

I'm a great believer in having a social welfare system for people to fall back on when in need. What I don't believe in is supporting those who languish on benefits with no plan to get off them.

If you deserve benefits then you should get them.

The feckless, such a derogatory term generated by politicians and the press and used by those lesser informed.

The feckless as you put it are also victims of the system, be it education or just circumstance."

Ha ha lesser informed subtle! They are not all victims believe me I have been there some of them are players.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The poor get demonised and the rich get richer

That's like saying people on benefits don't receive thier job seekers tesco and whoever else they buy stuff off does."

No it's like when the inevitable payment cards come in saying that yoiu can only shop at tesco, they'll only sell them the most basic shit food they do and the stuff that is out of date an no one else wants it but charge them twice as much as it is worth

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The poor get demonised and the rich get richer

So do you support the idea of uncapped benefits whereby the long term unemployable basically get given free housing and as much cash as they want to live off?

It is irrelevant who the housing benefit goes to, but it suits your argument to suggest to target private landlords. "

In broad terms I support a cap on benefits. I also support caps on rent, rent rises and tighter restrictions on exploitive landlords. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ot monkey71Couple
over a year ago

middlesbrough

"I would rather my taxes and ni were spent supporting those who need it than see them squandered away giving it to banks and the many other ways they filtered it off to make the rich richer.

Same here however the keyword is the ones who "need" it. Not the feckless.

I'm a great believer in having a social welfare system for people to fall back on when in need. What I don't believe in is supporting those who languish on benefits with no plan to get off them.

If you deserve benefits then you should get them.

The feckless, such a derogatory term generated by politicians and the press and used by those lesser informed.

The feckless as you put it are also victims of the system, be it education or just circumstance.

Ha ha lesser informed subtle! They are not all victims believe me I have been there some of them are players. "

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I would rather my taxes and ni were spent supporting those who need it than see them squandered away giving it to banks and the many other ways they filtered it off to make the rich richer.

Same here however the keyword is the ones who "need" it. Not the feckless.

I'm a great believer in having a social welfare system for people to fall back on when in need. What I don't believe in is supporting those who languish on benefits with no plan to get off them.

If you deserve benefits then you should get them.

The feckless, such a derogatory term generated by politicians and the press and used by those lesser informed.

The feckless as you put it are also victims of the system, be it education or just circumstance.

Ha ha lesser informed subtle! They are not all victims believe me I have been there some of them are players.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

That's the problem I don't hate the game (benefits) I think looking after the vulnerable,sick and out of work is something we attempt to do well in the UK. Well much better than the rest of the world anyway. And people who take advantage of this is quite sad.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ot monkey71Couple
over a year ago

middlesbrough

"I would rather my taxes and ni were spent supporting those who need it than see them squandered away giving it to banks and the many other ways they filtered it off to make the rich richer.

Same here however the keyword is the ones who "need" it. Not the feckless.

I'm a great believer in having a social welfare system for people to fall back on when in need. What I don't believe in is supporting those who languish on benefits with no plan to get off them.

If you deserve benefits then you should get them.

The feckless, such a derogatory term generated by politicians and the press and used by those lesser informed.

The feckless as you put it are also victims of the system, be it education or just circumstance.

Ha ha lesser informed subtle! They are not all victims believe me I have been there some of them are players.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I think that _iew has been brought about by poor perception. Try giving Plato's Allegory of the cave a read it may help with your perception. Books on eugenics should also be on your reading list.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I would rather my taxes and ni were spent supporting those who need it than see them squandered away giving it to banks and the many other ways they filtered it off to make the rich richer.

Same here however the keyword is the ones who "need" it. Not the feckless.

I'm a great believer in having a social welfare system for people to fall back on when in need. What I don't believe in is supporting those who languish on benefits with no plan to get off them.

If you deserve benefits then you should get them.

The feckless, such a derogatory term generated by politicians and the press and used by those lesser informed.

The feckless as you put it are also victims of the system, be it education or just circumstance.

Ha ha lesser informed subtle! They are not all victims believe me I have been there some of them are players.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I think that _iew has been brought about by poor perception. Try giving Plato's Allegory of the cave a read it may help with your perception. Books on eugenics should also be on your reading list.

Not on your nelly.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Got it all sorted.

When you work and pay all those taxes into the big government pot, you expect some back if you fall on hard times.

1. If you are unfortunate and become unemployed you start getting back some money back from the big pot!!! (Only fair)

2. If your disabled and are unable to work you should get full benefits.(Only fair)

3. People that are in work but need top ups from the government. These people are hard working and deserve a little help. (Only fair)

4. The unemployed people who cannot find a job and would love one. First generation unemployed. Need to get them encouragement to get a job.(that's fair)

5. Fulltime unemployed that are second or third generation. They have got into a rut, and need to get training. Not sitting at home waiting for everyone else to bring home a wage to pay for them.They need housing and enough money to survive but def not 26k. They have never paid into the big pot.

Finally I hope all those that have been working hard have a good May day holiday off. And my hat of to all those that are working on Monday.

For those in category 5,is May day just another day at "the office"?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread