Forum menu
Without looking at an equivalent control group it's hard to know how much is just to do with the changing economy and how much is down to the actual cap.
IMHO the benefits cap could never be a bad thing, benefits are there to provide support in times of difficulty not be a career choice!!
I'm earning about £1500 over the benefits cap as a Paramedic. A lot of my colleagues earn much less than the cap of £26000. How is that fair and an incentive to work. Some of the scumbags abusing our staff are actually "earning" a higher standard of living, but choose to piss it up the wall/into a vein/smoke and eat themselves to death.
Don't forget benefits are tax free. You would need to earn mid 30Ks to be left with 25k after tax and NI and pension contributions were taken off.
[img] 
[/img]
^What notlocal said.
HB is included in the amount paid, so the landlord gets his overpriced buy to let mortgage/rent payments paid while making profit from the state.
But then HB also pays the intrest element on your mortgage idf unemployed or unemployable.
The benefits cap amount is approx twice what i get paid per year for a 40hr week in two separate jobs, the funny thing is i could prob get disability allowance thrown at me due to a spinal injury and associated problems…..I think i may research a career change as having no work to go to will allow me to ride my bike and do stuff/exercise when i like which would only aid my health rather than come in from a days work and be so absolutely ****ed it's a struggle to lift my legs up the steps to my door.
Lets not turn this site into the Daily Mail.
The benefits cap is the maximum you can get in certain circumstances ie multiple dependants etc. Not the amount you automatically get. If you earn less than that and meet those criteria you will be getting benefits to top you up to at least that level anyway.
So, if a life on benefits is such a great career choice, why not not give it a shot? Pop back in a couple of years and let us know how it's working out for you.
No problem with a system that scrutinises the validity of someone's claim for state benefits. I have a massive problem with political spin used to justify rampant cuts to the poorest and most vulnerable people within our so called civilised society.
One question. How many of these people "forced" in to work due to the benefits cap are still claiming top ups due to poor wages or the availability of low hour contracts.
There is no evidence that the benefit cap "is working".
Only a Daily Mail reader would think that no one receiving benefit ever goes back to work.
[b][i]"There is insufficient information to establish the causal links between: the Benefit Cap; affected claimants engaging with employment support; and the likelihood of affected claimants entering work. We recommend that DWP conducts and publishes research into these causal links in 2014, in order to establish whether the Benefit Cap is achieving one of its key policy aims".[/i][/b]
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmworpen/479/47909.htm#n131
47% of those affected by the benefit cap live in London. This has nothing to do with "a career choice" and everything to do with extremely high housing costs.
The benefit cap is unfair and immoral.
But it does serve the purpose of demonizing those who have become victims of a failed socioeconomic model, and the disastrous housing policies of successive governments, as is illustrated by the use of the term "scumbags" on this thread.
So expect it to stay in place as politicians continue to blame the victims for their own failures.
We'll that smoked Ernie out anyway - welcome back fella, we were worried!
What proportion of the people affected would have returned to work without a benefits cap?
🙂
I was raised in a council house, by a loving single parent Mother. She worked around my school hours and with family help. Our house was also clean and warm, and the kitchen was used to preparehhealthy nutritious meals for my sister and me.
The word scumbags was applied to those that prefer alcohol /tobacco/drug addiction to the harder choice of not existing in one's own faeces or urine and general life detritus.
Having to check the floor for needles and other biohazards before treating these "victims" may have hardened my attitude a tad.
The simplicity of sweeping generalisations is a beautiful thing.
But it does serve the purpose of demonizing those who have become victims of a failed socioeconomic model, and the disastrous housing policies of successive governments, as is illustrated by the use of the term "scumbags" on this thread.
+1
Sad to see people taken in by propaganda to direct hate against people on benefits.
The fact is that the vast majority of benefits go to pensioners and those that are in work but either underemployed or badly paid. The unemployed are quite a small proportion of the total bill.
The amount of people actually abusing the system is very small - you might not think so if you read the Daily Mail or listen to the government. Less than 1% is lost to fraud - which is significantly less than that lost to mistakes, or the amount of legitimate benefits that go unclaimed.
People apparently think this figure is around 25% because they believe all the crap they read in the 'newspapers'.
3. Job-seekers allowance: 29% of people think we spend more on JSA than pensions, when in fact we spend 15 times more on pensions (£4.9bn vs £74.2bn)[iv].4. Benefit fraud: people estimate that 34 times more benefit money is claimed fraudulently than official estimates: the public think that £24 out of every £100 spent on benefits is claimed fraudulently, compared with official estimates of £0.70 per £100[v].
9. Benefit bill: people are most likely to think that capping benefits at £26,000 per household will save most money from a list provided (33% pick this option), over twice the level that select raising the pension age to 66 for both men and women or stopping child benefit when someone in the household earns £50k+. In fact, capping household benefits is estimated to save £290m[xi], compared with £5bn[xii] for raising the pension age and £1.7bn[xiii] for stopping child benefit for wealthier households.
People should really make a bit of effort to look at a few facts before furiously knee-jerking.
Ernie is right however.
One question. How many of these people "forced" in to work due to the benefits cap are still claiming top ups due to poor wages or the availability of low hour contracts.
Is not necessarily a bad thing, you are a lot more employable with a job than with no job and if your work record is old you need to prove yourself again. Plus most work, well paid or not is generally good for personal well being.
The benefit cap is unfair and immoral
When I was unemployed last year I got £77 every 2 weeks/week (I forget now) despite having paid in, with no breaks since I was 17. So for 25 years.
I think it's unfair and immoral that someone who's never paid a red cent in tax can claim £26k a year. But hey, I guess I'm wrong. I guess they are entitled to it.
I think it's unfair and immoral that someone who's never paid a red cent in tax can claim £26k a year.
Lucky for you that they can't then isn't it.
That figure is per household. And you're comparing Jobseeker's Allowance against Jobseeker's Allowance plus Income Support, Employment and Support Allowance, Universal Credit, Housing Benefit, Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit and Carer's Allowance.
"Our reforms are creating an alternative to life on benefits and already we are seeing an increasing number of people changing their circumstances so they are no longer subject to the cap," said Lord Freud.
They really have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this claim.
See, told you I was wrong.
I'm with peter poddy here. Also the time was limited and I had no help with paying the mortgage whatsoever, really boiled my piss going to sign on, see the utter scummers who we're claiming.
[i]People should really make a bit of effort to look at a few facts before furiously knee-jerking. [/i]
Eh, the world is built on believing rather than knowing.
[i]When I was unemployed last year I got £77 every 2 weeks/week (I forget now) despite having paid in, with no breaks since I was 17. So for 25 years.
I think it's unfair and immoral that someone who's never paid a red cent in tax can claim £26k a year. But hey, I guess I'm wrong. I guess they are entitled to it. [/i]
Working OH I assume, as that would be just JSA.
See, told you I was wrong.
Apologies for bringing facts into the debate.
I'm with peter poddy here.
Knee-jerking based on factual errors you mean?
grum + 1
dailymail-esque comments minus a million.
What would cut the benefits bill the most is removing the reliance on working tax credits by 'encouraging" low wage employers to pay more. As it stands middle income and above earners are effectively subsidising the profits of these low wage businesses.
Rent control wouldn't be a bad idea either. Spending only 5p on building houses for every pound spent on housing benefit doesn't seem that clever either.
But hey, let's not worry about that, instead let's focus on tiny minority of "scumbags". We can scowl at them on the TV and bristle at the stories in the newspaper knowing that we are better than them and it could never happen to us
the funny thing is i could prob get disability allowance thrown at me due to a spinal injury and associated problems
Indeed you could it is not means tested and not related to employment.
Its an allowance because you are disabled
Today's figures show that 9% of those households had a family member in work by the end of 2013.
Does not say how many hours or whether it is an older child
I would also assume there was alarger % of high earners who fell into this trap during the recession who may bump the figure - I would also like to see a baseline as I agree that claiming this
Our reforms are creating an alternative to life on benefits and already we are seeing an increasing number of people changing their circumstances so they are no longer subject to the cap," said Lord Freud.
Is posturing and unproven
Welcome back ernie good contribution and they have been missed
Tax avoidance is the bigger problem.
Smoke and mirrors.
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and I can't blame anyone for doing it and don't see it as a problem. The tax system might be in need of root and branches overhaul which probably the real issue. People on benefits look to maximise the benefits they're entitled to, why would someone not exploit the tax rules to minimise their tax bill. Who's going to pay more tax than they have to? I got my bike on the c2w scheme to be more tax efficient rather than buying it with cash or interest free credit, therefore I'm avoiding tax.
The reality is that there are people who are turning down work to remain on benefits, either because they're better off, or just bone idle. I know that to be a fact thanks to an unpleasant person within my family. It's probably a small proportion of people on benefits, but let's not be so naive to say it doesn't go on so it's perfectly reasonable to take measures to deal with it. I don't really care if benefit caps get more people to work. its the fair and right thing to do anyway. I don't get a pay rise from my boss if we were to have another child, and neither do those working people who are earning less than some take home in benefits and also contribute to the tax system.
wobbliscott - MemberThe reality is that there are people who are turning down work to remain on benefits, either because they're better off, or just bone idle.
Of course there are! But until the day every benefit recipient is like this, punishing those who aren't abusing it because of those who are is wrong.
Can someone tell me what a family of 4 from an EU country is entitled to as soon as they step off the plane please.
@grum, I don't think @notlocal has been taken in by propaganda he's telling us what he sees first hand as a front line paramedic. I also thn you're being cute with statistics about benefits going to the elderly. Pensions are not a benefit. If you factor in the disability benefits and associated payments those over 65 are not the main recipients.
@zippy, I think what benefits they are entitled to "straight off the plane" is missing the point. It's the benefits they can claim within a few months whilst never havng had a job here in the UK.
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and I can't blame anyone for doing it and don't see it as a problem. Pointless loopholes should be closed.
The average loophole exploiter is swindling more than the average benefit swindler.
Neither is morally correct. Maybe legal, but shouldn't be.
jambalaya - MemberPensions are not a benefit.
Well, state pension is included in the government's benefits budget, and accounts for 47% of that budget- and for some reason it's the total budget that gets used every time someone wants us to think we spend too much on benefits. So...
The average loophole exploiter is swindling more than the average benefit swindler.
The average loophole exploiter is already contributing to society, the benefits scrounger does nothing but take from it.
The average loophole exploiter benefits far more from society than those in need of state help.
I was brought up on council estates/in social housing by parents on benefits.
I made a choice to listen at school, get a job, learn a trade, work hard, get promoted, start my own business, be good at what I do and graft hard - thus bringing in a constant flow of work, start another business, help Mrs STR set-up her business, in our 40's we are now pretty comfortable (certainly not rich) however - some weeks I'm working 7 days, some times have been hard, a lot of my work is away from home.
Nothing has been handed to me on a plate - becoming an electrician 25 years ago was done through a YTS apprenticeship - £35 per week (I was paying £25 board to live at home).
My second business employs a lad I've known for years - it pays minimum wage, but he knew that and was happy to take that (he asked me for the job) - the business wouldn't be viable at this stage paying much more. To deal with that, he gets off his arse and does something with the days he isn't in the shop. The area where I live hasn't got high unemployment, but still has a good number of scroungers who can't be arsed. A girl who is going to start doing the odd day for me has 4 different employers and looks after a young kid - she isn't worked to death, she just does what she needs to do.
I do empathise with people born into what must seem like impossible situations, but on the flipside, have no time for those that won't help themselves.
@grum, I don't think @notlocal has been taken in by propaganda he's telling us what he sees first hand as a front line paramedic.
Some of the scumbags abusing our staff are actually "earning" a higher standard of living, but choose to piss it up the wall/into a vein/smoke and eat themselves to death.
So how does he know all this? All he knows is the way they behave in encounters with paramedics - the rest of this is pure supposition/hearsay and sounds like it could come straight from a Daily Mail editorial.
I also thn you're being cute with statistics about benefits going to the elderly. Pensions are not a benefit. If you factor in the disability benefits and associated payments those over 65 are not the main recipients.
Re state pensions - they are part of the welfare system. They are paid to everyone regardless of whether they've worked a day in their lives or not. You can claim it's somehow different if you like, but it's not.
Do these 'scummers' people are moaning about suddenly become deserving once they reach pension age BTW?
'Being cute with statistics' = stating facts. But if they don't fit in with your prejudices you'll just discount them I suppose.
The average loophole exploiter is already contributing to society, the benefits scrounger does nothing but take from it.
Oh, that's OK then.
Rent control wouldn't be a bad idea either.
It's a crap idea. Once it's in, it never gets raised enough to make it worthwhile for landlords to maintain the buildings and it all goes to shit. Why should landlords pay for market failure?
NYC has a dwindling amount of rent control and it's one of the biggest middle class scams around - those who have rent controlled apartments either get subsidized to live in a s****ier part of town than they would be willing to pay for while everyone else commutes, or they illegally sublet and cream off a profit for nothing.
Can someone tell me what a family of 4 from an EU country is entitled to as soon as they step off the plane please.
I suppose "a hearty welcome" probably isn't the right answer.
Good news that 3,000 people are working rather than claiming benefits above all FOR THEM. Widely recognised that work is the best solution so churlish not to welcome that news. Ditto the fact that overall UN is likely to fall below (a still high) 7% this year and that the economic recovery is becoming more entrenched.
Whether that is an indirect result of the introduction off the benefits cap is another issue altogether, so Lord Freud is correct with the "encouraging" comment but perhaps not in his attempt to argue the causation. Lots of factors are likely to be involved.
Despite flaws in design, the benefit cap enjoys an unusually high level of public support if polls are to be believed and broad x-party consensus (with debates on the structure) So in that different context, then it would seem to be working.