Forum menu
Agreed..
hoodie, sorry, I probably gave you the tj treatment. Care to start another thread on the localism bill as I am interested in getting my head around the issues.
That's utter rubbish, and someone close to me sits on tribunals that hear benefits appeals.
ok.. so I commented..
I can only comment on what I see with my own eyes. All I have typed is fact. I dont work in or claim any benefits, but I have sat many times listening to the guy mentioned laughingly tell me how he stays on benefits, I've even seem him jumping around his house like an Olympic gymnast looking for his crutches, simply because he's seen someone in a suit outside his house.
Could you live on £26,000 per year
Yes!
I would love the extra cash!
(2+2, rented 3 bed house)
elzorillo
Your family of 7 basic benefits is around £550 a week plus housing benefit. that £550 a week has to pay everything but your housing costs. gas . electric food etc. Now that's a fair sum of money but no way does it stretch to the lifestyle you describe, Housing benefit also has a cap
They would be better off if he worked more than 16 hrs a week as working tax credit is more generous
No one is better off on benefits than working since the introduction of tax credits
CHB - MemberBut I see that we live in a country where a single dad on£26000 a year salary would be better off jacking in his job and living off the state.
He will be better off working - maybe not much but he will be due to the long taper on tax credits.
I have lived off a lot less before I got married and had kids etc. Would require a lifestyle change now, but it's surprising how quickly you'll adapt when you have to.
I've got a mate who earns 85K+ and probably lives off 15.
He's as tight as 2 coats of paint though.
All I have typed is [s]fact[/s] [b]what the crim who fakes the bad back has told me[/b]
I'm sorry.. I will shut up and stop being childish.. your source is way more reliable than my many years of having a disabled family member..
I'm off to bed before this fella gives me an itch.. 8)
TJ in pure financial income terms you are probably correct. But then factor in the hassle of childcare etc for three kids, the lack of time he has with them and the cost of commuting from leeds to bradford each day and I do think his stress levels and quality of life would be better on benefits. To be honest hes the only person I know that i would encourage to fall back on the state. He has 20 plus years of paying taxes, no shame in taking a bit out of the system while the kids are at the key age they are now.
These people you see who are affording new cars and multiple foreign holidays simply cannot do so from benefits. the levels simply are too low.
Motability provides 580'000 cars to people on benefits.
Not all of them are genuinely disabled.
http://benefitfraud.blogspot.com/2011/11/light-sentence-for-calculated-benefit.html
bit late on this reply but...
granted i didnt take into account im renting a room, rather than an entire house (uni) but still.
rent: £65 a week, £3120 a year (living with 4 others)
food: £25 a week, £1200 a year
leaves £680 for bills and other stuff. ok maybe 5 grand was pushing it a bit, but my point is that people dont realise how little you can actually survive on.
god my drug habit cost more than jsa dont know how you can survive on jsa
Motability provides 580'000 cars, [b]scooters or powered wheelchairs[/b] to people on benefits.
Anyone who thinks that DLA is for poor souls in Wheelchairs is sadly mistaken.
Yes, some folk are, but the vast majority are "mental health issues" claimants. That includes, drink and drugs cases.
DLA has the piss ripped right out of it.
😯
Any source for that incredible assertion?
people simply are not having enough children these days hence why we need so many immigrants, they could never openly pay people to breed due to politicly views in this country.Bit that the real reason you get so much money for having kids, its good for the countryWhy should having more and more kids entitle you to more and more money?
Lifer, let me give a couple of examples of Benefits madness.
Your not fit for work so claim ESA. Your other half does not work but is physically prefectly fit. You can claim for them. They do not have to sign on.
You are disabled, cannot care for yourself and receive High Rate DLA Care. Because of this, your partner can claim Carers Allowance for looking after you. But your partner too is disabled, cannot care for themselves and receives High Rate DLA Care. So you can claim Carers Allowance for looking after them. In other words, two people who cant look after themselves, are perfectly entitled to claim for looking after each other.
And that's the tip of the iceberg.
what most people want to hear,unless you have a big family and live in a big house and dont want to work.
Or live in an area with very high property prices and you've just lost your job thanks to this government's policies.
What other people earn is utterly irrelevant - it's not suppose to be a form of punishment. So I don't know why people keep swallowing this bollox about average income.
Perhaps next they'll put a limit on the maximum amount the NHS can spend on one person, after all someone receiving a bypass op must cost the NHS far more than the average, and apparently "need" is no longer an issue.
This policy, which is backed by the Labour Party, represents the triumph of tabloid-fueled moronic thinking. And very neatly fits into the strategy of blaming the victims for the government's failures.
Raising unemployment ? falling living standards ? chronic housing shortages ? high taxes/VAT to pay for the bankers cockups ? young people without a future ? the super-rich not paying their taxes ? Never mind about all that ........ just blame those targeted by the tabloids.
Oh how the Bullingdon Boys must be laughing.
Must be hard to keep a straight face sometimes.
[img] 
[/img]
yunki - Memberliving in a council property in the countryside is now wrong..?
cos the house may be worth bucks..?bucks to who..? some nob from the city..?
what's the argument here..?I think I misunderstood and thought people were getting cross about housing benefit paying high rents..?
our place is in a rural area near to our family which may make it worth a few bucks to someone..
what are we doing that's objectionable here..?
why has someone with some high paying job got more right to live in a rural area..?
I think there is a severe problem with people confusing wealth and worth..
The objection is that someone can live in a house in a nice area and not contribute anything financially to the state whilst someone else who does contribute finanically to the state can't and has to live somewhere less nice. What's not fair is that the person contributing is effectively paying the person who's not contrubuting to live in the area that they themselves can't afford. How can anyone argue that's fair?
Perhaps I'm feeling right wing today because i'm about to have to pay stamp duty on a house (aka a tax on earnings i've already paid tax on), but I must say 26k for doing nothing is ridiculous.
Spends his daytime breeding koi and birds of prey.
Serial killer. Definitely.
stucol - Member
Lifer, let me give a couple of examples of Benefits madness.Your not fit for work so claim ESA. Your other half does not work but is physically prefectly fit. You can claim for them. They do not have to sign on.
What can you claim for them?
You are disabled, cannot care for yourself and receive High Rate DLA Care. Because of this, your partner can claim Carers Allowance for looking after you. But your partner too is disabled, cannot care for themselves and receives High Rate DLA Care. So you can claim Carers Allowance for looking after them. In other words, two people who cant look after themselves, are perfectly entitled to claim for looking after each other.
Like it says on the DirectGov website you mean?
"Carer's Allowance can be claimed by more than one person in a household, such as a couple caring for each other."
[url= http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Caringforsomeone/DG_10012525 ]DirectGov[/url]
But of course Carer's Allowance is affected by other benefits (such as DLA) so neither would get the full rate but would also not be getting sufficient care so I would suggest that it never happens. At least not often enough to be statistically significant.
[b]I always thought of the benefit system as a safety net, how wrong was I![/b]
About 8 years ago we were a family with husband working (self employed Driving Instructor since early 90's), and me looking after the 2 young children. We were involved in a car crash and my husband spent 3 months in a wheelchair.
I got the best benefit advice from a friend who worked at the CAB, but we still ended up getting less than a similar family of whom no one had ever worked, how can this be right?
We got less than our monthly mortgage at the time; we got incapacity (about £70 p/w) and income support. We had no saving apart from the money set aside for next tax bill (less than the bill). Being self employed you pay tax every 6 months instead of every time you get paid. This money got counted as personal savings, eventhough owed to the Inland Revenue and would be counted as such untill the bill was due (as fas as I am aware you pay in arrears?!). Money was deducted from Income Support (-£12 p/w).
We live in a modest 3 bed semi bought by husband in the mid eighties, so low mortgage. We did NOT qualify to have our interest paid as we had re-mortgaged (lots of good deals about back then) within the last few year and this counted as a new mortgage?!?!?
We would not have survived had it not been for my dad who put £3000 in our bank, and for all the friend and family who brought food/bought shopping.
We totally lost faith in the benefit system after that.
My husband had never even seen a sick note before that time, and had always worked. We also had to pay back any benefits we did receive out of our very modest pay out from the Motor Insurance Bureau (5 years later).
It definitly needs to change, but maybe concentrate on helping the people who do deserve it and really need their safety net...
unless you have a big family and live in a big house and dont want to work.
[img] http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSdxlBLRc8cHngT30boDaGx5QaYaHFivrrE_eZMowWJILUDnrDvYg [/img]
"Oh, I say, that's rotten!"
This policy, which is backed by the Labour Party, represents the triumph of tabloid-fueled moronic thinking. And very neatly fits into the strategy of blaming the victims for the government's failures.
Ernie you were doing well with your argument up to this point and I think that this illustrates the problem with the debate. It is polarised around left versus right.
It shouldn't be.
What people should or should not get in benefit is as irrelevant to the average income as it is to how they got there in the first place.
It's not the government's 'fault' it might not even be anyone's fault. It's just how it is.
The right would do much better to stop polarising the argument around the issue of fairness compared to average household income and the left would do much better to stop polarising it around 'it's the government's fault'.
£26k/year?
it'd be a whopping pay rise, so yes. yes i could.
If it all goes wrong for me and I can't face working anymore or the planned March increase in our Nursery bill I might just get mrshora to kick out some more kids then I can do **** all.
Why not? I can't believe some ponsy ****ing Cleric in the Lords was against the cap.
Might have to move away from an area where the kids have friends? Thats what happens to the working man EVERY DAY when he loses his job, can't afford his mortgage anymore.
Its not Eugenics FFS. Rant over.
"And very neatly fits into the strategy of blaming the victims for the government's failures."It's not the government's 'fault' it might not even be anyone's fault. It's just how it is.
😀 An act of God perhaps ?
Unemployment inching up to 3 million is the government's fault. Falling living standards is the government's fault. Chronic housing shortages is the government's fault. High taxes/VAT to pay for the bankers cockups is the government's fault. Young people without a future is the government's fault. The super-rich not paying their taxes is the government's fault.
It's all the government's, and the failed policies which they support, fault. Not just this government, but the last one too.......Tories and New Labour - two cheeks of the same arse.
But of course you're right, we're not suppose to blame the government, we are suppose to blame either no one or the victims of their failed policies. The tabloids will keep you up to date concerning who to blame.
The benefit cap is an irrelevance which will achieve nothing other than possibly cause real hardship to some vulnerable families/children. The money involved, alleged to be £290m per year, is peanuts. It is less than one third of what just [u]one[/u] government owned bank paid in bonuses last year.
And it pales into complete insignificance compared to the billions being spunked on an austerity programme which cannot work.
It will not make the slightest difference to the country's and the government's finances - that's not the reason why it's being implemented. It's being implemented because thanks to daily drip feeding by the tabloids blaming the victims of failures rather than the perpetrators has become "popular" with the public. And because it is a very useful distraction.
Suckers.
would I be unhappy about not having to work a single day and still receive in excess of £500pw after tax? damn right I'd be happy with that.
That is disgusting, no wonder I have to pay so much bloody tax.
I thought it was popular because it was fair. Ie benefits shouldn't pay out more than the average salary. Not every bit of legislation needs to make billions in impact.
Doesn't £26k also represent the figure George Osbourne spends on his annual ski trip?
Doesn't £26k also represent the figure George Osbourne spends on his annual ski trip?
Your dear Leader only paid 300k tax on a income of 12m last year. Maybe if he paid the highest tax rate... 😉
I thought it was popular because it was fair. Ie benefits shouldn't pay out more than the average salary. Not every bit of legislation needs to make billions in impact
In what way is it fair?
It caps household income [b]regardless of geography or household size[/b]. OK, don't have so many children, but once they've arrived, it's a bit hard to take them back. And once your kids are in a school, it gets hard to move them. By the way, the cheapest rents are - wait for it - in the areas with the lowest level of economic success. Are we really suggesting that we should simply ghettoise the poor? Really??
Part of the proposed saving was driven by the laughable Iain Duncan Smith's belief that private landlords would reduce rents because the government wasn't going to pay as much. All well and good, but when there's a ready demand for all rental properties (fuelled by the fact that many people can no longer afford to buy a house as they would previously have done, and therefore have to rent), the economics make no sense.
In short, this is an attention-grabbing piece of legislation, which will hit the poor. As they're traditionally Labour voters, DC will lose nothing, whilst gaining votes from the self-righteous Daily Mail faction.
which will hit the [s]poor[/s]people with an income > £26K tax free
FTFY 🙂
As others have said this does mostly boil down to housing benefit and those being housed in expensive areas. Although you would need to address the issue of creating suburbs full of benefit claimers I fully support moving people out of very expensive city centre properties.
That [woman] on the news asking why should she be moved out of her London home where she had a good lifestyle and was near friends? Err the why is because you're living off the state and the state has a duty to the taxpayers to ensure it supports you in an economical and prudent way.
It's not about making people homeless it's about relocating from places with high property prices to places with more realistic prices - it's not like they have to worry about their commute being longer...
Nickf the houses big enough to house a large family in London tend to be very expensive. Are you saying outside of London there is no economic chance of making a go of your life and contributing to the health of the nation?
As I understand it won't it only affect 1% of benefits claimants?
Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of the condems but sometimes legislation gets introduced mostly for the message it sends out about the society the govt thinks we want to live in. In this case theyve judged that the majority of society want a benefits system that doesn't leave low income earners wondering why they bother going to work. Regardless of the govts political motives thats quite a popular sentiment. So in that regard its fair because most of society wants it. Admittedly the 'most' part is an assumption on the part of the govt. but I think they may have the majority vote on this one.
I am slightly more concerned that a small group of unelected professional religious types managed to turn over a bill put forward by an elected govt. because they think that universal benefits are a good thing. Surely benefits should almost by definition only be for those who need them? In that regard universal benefit is a bit of an oxymoron. Can we have an elected house of lords soon please?
I am slightly more concerned that a small group of unelected professional religious types managed to turn over a bill put forward by an elected govt. because they think that universal benefits are a good thing. Surely benefits should almost by definition only be for those who need them? In that regard universal benefit is a bit of an oxymoron. Can we have an elected house of lords soon please?
I'm no fan of either Bishops or Lords, but in this case they're asking a reasonable question - if Child Benefit is held to be a universal benefit - paid to all regardless of need - then it has to be respected as such, and cannot be included in other benefits payments.
If the Government wish to remove universal benefits, that's quite another question, which they should be asking seperately.
If the Government wish to remove universal benefits
Lord no, please.
"A welfare trap is an example of the perverse incentive: the welfare recipient has an incentive to avoid raising his own productivity because the resulting income gain is not enough to compensate for the (increased) work effort"
[url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap [/url]
Get rid of high paying benifits full stop they trap people in the benifits system. It should be hard to live on benifits and you should ALWAYS be better of working. any system that doesnt manage that is not functioning correctly. (disability excluded)
Mark - Resident Grumpy
As I understand it won't it only affect 1% of benefits claimants?
Less than.
54% of which are in London.
It does not take into account the number of children in a household which is the main problem for me. It will put children into poverty.
The 'oh but you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them' argument is of course fair, but as these kids already exist what do you suggest? All this will do is keep the cycle of poverty going.
What the government should be doing (in combination with the 3 year transition period mentioned above) is building alternative, social housing in areas where a lot of claimants are affected, so reducing the amount of benefits paid to private landlords.
I can understand a benefits cap.. in fact it seems entirely reasonable and as far as I'm aware there has always been a cap.. My family of four for example work very hard and top up with tax credits and [b]between us[/b] the ceiling on our total income is far less than the 26k being bandied about here.. if there is a way to exploit the system and increase this please tell me about it..
but there's a lot of talk here of luxurious lifestyles and I think there are still perhaps many ignorant folk who believe that a (legitimate) life on the rock n roll is some kind of lavish self-indulgence.. which it patently isn't
there seems to be two problems that are causing concern on this thread.. criminals exploiting the system.. and an underclass that are unable to see the advantages of working so they become willing to flounder instead.. eeking out a very meagre existence often on the very edge of indigence..
neither of those things are caused by the availability of social security benefit..
there's no valid reason to start sharpening pitchforks and calling for the government to pull the rug out from under the feet of legitimate claimants..
they are caused by exploitatively low pay and the resultant associated criminality..
you don't ban cars because car crime is on the rise..
The 'oh but you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them' argument is of course fair
No, it's not, it's fatuous cack.
My family of four for example work very hard
I'm still waiting for someone to admit they're a workshy layabout that thinks the world owes them a living. 😉
Yunki.
Two ways I've come across:
Fella isn't listed as living at the property (and to the authorities is classed as the 'Uncle' if need be).
Cash in hand working in takeaways, illegally mini-cabbing etc etc etc.
If you list your partner as a single Mum you are bound to get far more than you being honest.
I'm still waiting for someone to admit they're a workshy layabout that thinks the world owes them a living
*waves*
I do have to sit in an office for 8 or so hours a day though 🙁