Benefit cuts

“Ah so this is the new game is it? Just ignore it when someone corrects you, and repost what you’ve said before as if it’s not been shown to be false?”

Sadly, it’s all THM appears capable of. 🙁

“Now what about all the other 100s of thousands of unsupported vulnerable members of society?”

Quite.

Anyone else been to see ‘I Daniel Blake’ at the cinema yet..?

It doesn’t make for easy watching but should be required viewing for every wannabe politician.

Is this the correct thread to ask about problem tenants in my flats I rent out?

depressed folk who find making a cup of tea a struggle and get overwhelmed by the thought of having to go and buy a new lightbulb

or my schizophrenic mate, Lisa – who believes that Louis Walsh is representing her in a televised court appeal when she watches X-factor

old folk who have leg ulcers deep enough to see exposed bone because they ‘don’t want to be a bother’

would any of them genuinely be hitting the benefits cap? From what I’ve read you have to be on housing + job seekers + child benefit (which is the case of the guy in the article), but it doesn’t sound like any of those three would be capable of looking after kids? I’m not saying they wouldn’t be impacted by cuts overall, but not specifically this cut?

Anyone else been to see ‘I Daniel Blake’ at the cinema yet..?

It doesn’t make for easy watching but should be required viewing for every wannabe politician.

Probably for an “unsuccessful” politician, but for one wishing to be successful in Brexit Britain possibly “Triumph of the Will” would be more useful…

would any of them genuinely be hitting the benefits cap?

My point was aimed more at the people suggesting that Steve should have pulled his finger out and sorted his life out like it’s the easiest thing in the world..

All of the examples I gave are genuine cases of people that I know of personally, that have struggled to jump through the necessary hoops to gain access to and then maintain benefits claims

5lab. The BenCap is applicable to all benefits, in the case of the chap in the article he would be receiving child tax credit (in all likelihood) iro his children. There are a few tiny cases where child allowance is still paid by legacy (JSA and IS).

The BenCap is actually applied though by Local Authorities through the Housing Benefit, for boring reasons that are of little relevance 🙂

Unless of course an individual/household is on UC.

You can access this service from a One Stop Shop or on line at: http://www.wirral.gov.uk

What’s a one stop shop?

teamhurtmore – Member

NW you remain confused. You posted information relating to a different issue (the government’s plan not to spend as much over and above what they earn as before) while ignoring the precise aims of benefit cuts taken directly from the governments statement on the issue, (which falsify you point.)

It’s incredible that you’d claim that the manifesto is talking about a “different issue”. It says in black and white (as I quoted earlier) that the £12bn of welfare cuts are part of their deficit reduction plan. And the benefit cap which we’re discussing here is part of that £12bn cut. Very simple facts.

Since you can’t dispute this, all you can do is misrepresent my point, try to ignore it, or admit you’re wrong- or lying. The first two aren’t working so well are they?

What’s a one stop shop?

http://bfy.tw/8VGk

It’s very admirable what PP is doing, but we all know that it’s one thing getting the form filled and a completely different thing either getting the cash in the first place and then maintain it as the DWP/Govt/agency of choice tries their hardest to prevent you from getting your hands on it.
If only it was as easy as filling in the form and sending it off.

What’s a one stop shop?
http://bfy.tw/8VGk

I know how Google works ta, I was making a point.

4 school age kids gets him £250 a month in child benefit which would buy their food .I voted Tory when I spent 7 years as a single parent on income support.

From what I’ve read you have to be on housing + job seekers + child benefit (which is the case of the guy in the article), but it doesn’t sound like any of those three would be capable of looking after kids?

That assumes that the decision to have kids is always arrived at after sensible consideration of one’s life situation.

It’s interesting how the thread of privilege runs quietly through this discussion. (er, and sometimes loudly)

In addition to being in a financially different place to the average MTB rider (ie skint), many people on benefits also do not make life decisions with the cool and rational intelligence of a successful IT manager. They may have grown up in care homes, or without good adult role models, or with substance or mental health issues. Etc etc. Or maybe they’re just not that smart.

But the point is that many people end up in a mess because they don’t have the basic life skills and decision making prowess that others take for granted. It’s easy to imagine yourself in the shoes of someone who is skint. You can imagine what you’d do in that situation, and perhaps berate the likes of ‘Steve’ for not doing what you would have done. It’s far harder to imagine being in that situation without all the knowledge you’ve built up over the last x years.

cool and rational intelligence of a successful IT manager.

😀

4 school age kids gets him £250 a month in child benefit which would buy their food .I voted Tory when I spent 7 years as a single parent on income support.

I bet you voted brexit too, didn’t you?
Your awsum!

many people on benefits also do not make life decisions with the cool and rational intelligence of a successful IT manager

Not just people on benefits. I’m a complete **** up when it comes to doing anyything life-related. I’ve cost myself an ungodly sum of money by simply not filling in the right forms and trying to solve problems in stupid ways.

The ONLY reason I’m not in Steve’s position is that by pure fluke I was born with an aptitude for certain tasks that are in demand into a family that allowed them to be nurtured.

It’s not because I deserve it, or because I worked for it. It’s just fluke.

I’ll admit it, I’m completely lost now.

Best do some work instead.

clodhopper – Member
“compulsory vasectomies “
AKA Enforced Sterilisation. Hmm, the Nazis were big fans of such inhumanity…

Tongue in cheek but not really the same as a 2 child limit is it? Female empowerment and access to contraception could be the simplest answer to a lot of child starvation/suffering across the world. Would a 2 child policy really be such a bad thing?

It’s incredible that you’d claim that the manifesto is talking about a “different issue”.

No its perfectly credible, those are the facts

It says in black and white (as I quoted earlier) that the £12bn of welfare cuts are part of their deficit reduction plan.

It does. Correct (we can leave the fact that this plan envisages spending more than the government earns to a greater degree than most other developed nations to another austerity debate)

And the benefit cap which we’re discussing here is part of that £12bn cut.

No its not – its another initiative altogether – I have copied the Government’s aim for you twice. Hopefully a third time is unnecessary.

Very simple facts.

Indeed they are, which is why I am surprised that an educated person like cannot understand them.

Since you can’t dispute this, all you can do is misrepresent the facts, try to ignore them, or admit you’re wrong- or lying. The clock is ticking…

I’ll admit it, I’m completely lost now.

Best do some work instead.

Now you’re getting it…

😀 😀

teamhurtmore – Member

No its not – its another initiative altogether – I have copied the Government’s aim for you twice. Hopefully a third time is unnecessary.

It caterorically is part of the manifesto’s £12bn welfare cut to reduce the deficit, and you’ve said nothing which contradicts this- no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

“This government was elected with a mandate to implement further savings from the £220bn welfare budget. We will reduce the benefit cap, and have made clear that we believe we need to make significant savings from other working-age benefits. We will set out in detail all the steps we will take to bring about savings totalling £12bn a year in next month’s Budget and at the spending review in the autumn.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33429390

But hey, it’s only George Osborne, Iain Duncan-Smith and the Conservative Party manifesto that say so. What do they know about George Osborne, Iain Duncan-Smith and the Conservative Party’s policies?

The failure of some in understanding the plight of others really is quite disappointing. Yes, the problems faced by Steve and similar may well look surmountable when you look at them with the same social and cultural capital which allows you to participate in a debate in a mountain biking forum. But it ignores the fact that Steve’s in ability to extract himself from his situation is really a question of structure and agency. Before you dismiss or criticise someone else like this you need drive a mile in their Audi

^^ what he said.

And also that helpless people are very much caught in the crossfire.

No its not. There will be saving by introducing a cap for sure but that is a side benefit and not a significant one. If the Tories really believe that putting a cap on benefits is an integral part of deficit reduction then we are all doomed. Check your own link – £12bn cuts in the budget and how much will a cap save????

We know what the government’s aim are – they publish them and I quoted them. There is a different initiative that focused on the role of benefits which has three clear aims. They cannot be clearer, however much you would like to ignore them.

And this should be the core of the debate instead of the normal claptrap. Benefits have failed here and across the developed world. They are a blunt tool that has been over-used. Among all the crap that IDS used to come out with (and still does) this was one area where he was making some sense. Work not benefits are the LT solution. But the former takes effort which governments prefer to shun. When they do, they should be encouraged, otherwise we condemn those at the bottom of the heap to a dismal future indeed.

I hope that none of the preachy sanctimonious, cold-hearted bastards on this thread ever find themselves coming into contact with the benefits system in a moment of genuine need.

Because of you believe the anecdotal shite that you read in the Daily Mail , and the government spew out, of an easily accessible life down the pub, the bookies, and watching Sky Sports on big tellies, then you’re in for one hell of a rude awakening!

But then that kind of thing never happens to fine, upstanding, and deserving … oh so very very deserving. .. Masters of the Universe – who owe absolutely nothing to simple good fortune, or priveledge of birth – like you, does it? So who cares? It happens purely to bone idle scrounging layabouts.

They deserve what they’ve got coming to them

So **** em, eh?

😯 have a pint binners and take 10 – thats an awful lot of stereotypes for one post 😀

Well with so many people going the extra mile to conform to them….

Actually – you must be in a bit of a fix, because ex Jezza the Labour Party have been largely in support of the benefit cap 😉

Not so much in a fix, as in total despair 😥

Cheer up you’ve got the Champions League to watch tonight – ooops, sorry wrong Manchester! 😉

Yunki I understand your list of needy cases. We spend £130bn pa on Welfare. That seems more than enough to support the most vulnerable, then the next most vulnerable .. the issue is where does that stop or is it an infinite budget … which brings me onto;

Most of us understand a budget, we want a bike, we have X,
we spend X. The problem with Government spending and welfare is that you set rules and payment amounts without ever really knowing what the cost is. What Labour did was a classic example. They created and expanded various benefit payments at an estimated cost of Y (affordable they said) except reality has proven very different (calc wrong, environment different). Something had to change.

We can pay everyone a bit less, we can pay some less, we can stop paying some.

Or we can just keep finding more money from somewhere

Or we can just keep finding more money from somewhere

Why, is there something wrong with the Magic Money Tree?

I hope that none of the preachy sanctimonious, cold-hearted bastards on this thread ever find themselves coming into contact with the benefits system in a moment of genuine need

I hope they do…

We can pay everyone a bit less, we can pay some less, we can stop paying some.

Or we can just keep finding more money from somewhere

Of £258bn welfare spending in 14/15, £108bn was on pensions. Given that’s increased by 25% in 4 years, I think we should be addressing that first.

Of £258bn welfare spending in 14/15, £108bn was on pensions. Given that’s increased by 25% in 4 years, I think we should be addressing that first.

100% behind this, especially as we’re living longer, and more healthily.

EDIT: Sod it.

jambalaya – Member

Or we can just keep finding more money from somewhere

ninfan – Member 

Why, is there something wrong with the Magic Money Tree?

Here’s a thought, it’s a very odd one, but it could work……..

Raise income tax?

Benefits are an insurance.
An insurance that stops more in Steve’s situations from knicking your bikes. And cars. And breaking in to your house. And mugging your grandma.
Think long and hard about what some of you wish for