The Benefits Cap

[Barrel of Fun]

The Cap: From April 2013, the total amount of benefit that working-age people can receive will be capped so that households on out of work benefits will no longer receive more than the average weekly wage earned by working households.

In an interview with the Sunday Times, Mr Duncan Smith admitted his plans for a cap on working-age benefits of £500 a week or £26,000 a year - equivalent to the average wage earned by working households after tax - could face defeat in the Lords on Monday.

 

[Ned]

In favour of the cap

How can it be right that benefits recipients (I know it's not all of them) receive more than some workers earn but would rather work than claim benefits.

 

[beorhthelm]

there is no rational argument for people on benefits to earn more and live in better houing than those working hard. the debate should be wether the cap is set too high, not if its valid policy.

 

[drew]

Let's promote poverty then. The idea of a cap is appealling but let's not forget, 'one size doesn't fit all'. Is it the national average wage or the local average wage. I believe it is the former which means a family in the south east are going to be heavily penalised purely because housing in this area is more expensive than in the north. IDS quite often quotes that there are families on benefit living in bigger houses than people who work for a living. In doing so he is attempting to suggest that that is the norm rather than the exception and therefore create image that everyone on benefit is a sponger.

Why can't the authorities cary out proper assesments of claimants so that benefits meet the basic needs of the family. If we had proper means testing of all benefits ranging from winter fuel payments (ie exclude those expats living in Spain etc or the elderly that are actually well off), child benefit (at least that is coming in although they ballsed that up) and any other benefit the welfare bill might not be the problem that the tories always perceive it to be.

 

[Weststander]

Let's promote poverty then. The idea of a cap is appealling but let's not forget, 'one size doesn't fit all'. Is it the national average wage or the local average wage. I believe it is the former which means a family in the south east are going to be heavily penalised purely because housing in this area is more expensive than in the north. IDS quite often quotes that there are families on benefit living in bigger houses than people who work for a living. In doing so he is attempting to suggest that that is the norm rather than the exception and therefore create image that everyone on benefit is a sponger.

Why can't the authorities cary out proper assesments of claimants so that benefits meet the basic needs of the family. If we had proper means testing of all benefits ranging from winter fuel payments (ie exclude those expats living in Spain etc or the elderly that are actually well off), child benefit (at least that is coming in although they ballsed that up) and any other benefit the welfare bill might not be the problem that the tories always perceive it to be.

Let's promote homes in Chelsea & Kensington occupied by never-work families and paid for by taxpayers, because those families like living in a posh bit of central London.

 

[upthealbion1970]

In favour of the cap

How can it be right that benefits recipients (I know it's not all of them) receive more than some workers earn but would rather work than claim benefits.

Also in favour of the cap, I'm recieving benefits as a full time carer for my disabled mrs - finincially the only difference to me between being "out of work" and doing what I do 24/7 is £32.50 a week. Point I'm trying to make is that not everyone on benefits is job dodging, I gave up £30k a year job to do what I do, but if I stayed at work then carers would have been paid for (by the state) to do a fraction of what I do for a much larger cost than all of our benefits now.

 

[dgh123]

Should be assessed on an individual bases as everyone has different needs ...

 

[drew]

Let's promote homes in Chelsea & Kensington occupied by never-work families and paid for by taxpayers, because those families like living in a posh bit of central London.

Perhaps you should read the whole of my post. Unless of course you are IDS in disguise.

Does it not annoy you then that you are not getting the going rate for what you are doing? I know you obviously don't do it for the money. So in a sense why should you get paid less for a job you are doing out of the kindness of your heart then someone who is simply doing it for cash?

I doubt that he is doing it out of the kindness of his heart, as you put it. It's his mrs. What would you do if it were your Mrs, or maybe one of your children.

 

[upthealbion1970]

Does it not annoy you then that you are not getting the going rate for what you are doing? I know you obviously don't do it for the money. So in a sense why should you get paid less for a job you are doing out of the kindness of your heart then someone who is simply doing it for cash?

We have enough to live (just) as mrs is fantastic at budgeting and mother in law will help out financially if we do ever need it, yes it's annoying in one sense but the fact of the matter is that mrs' MS deteriorated so far so quickly that in all honesty the only choice we made as a couple was when I changed career - we had already decided that I would become her carer at some point. The worst thing was poor info from dwp which led to us going without any benefits apart from child benefit for 4 months!

 

[Nibble]

In theory a cap is a good idea. But letg's look at who's doing it? Cameron. Therefore there will be a catch. Let's discount the scoungers as they will always be there, cheating the system. Let's look at the average person, can't find work and has to rent. If the government decides the average rent for a certain area is say £200 a week but your rent goes up to 220 a week, you are f***ed, that's 80 extra quid you have to come up with a month, a lot of money if you are on £67 a week!
People aren't looking for luxury pads in Kensington, they are looking for a base to rebuild their lives. Cameron focuses on the scroungers and has us all believing anyone on benefits is a waste of space and is stealing food from you r children mouths.
Look at the smoke and mirrors he puled with Uni fees. He made out that it's the Uni's that are now chgarging when in fact the Uni's always charged 9k a year but the government subsidised it. The government pulled that funding and made it look like Uni's were now charging.
He's a snake and anything he does to cut benefits should be viewed with extreme suspicion. The fact is he is putting a lot of people who are barely keeping their head above water into abject poverty.

 

[Falkor]

Should be assessed on an individual bases as everyone has different needs ...

This im told im not allowed to work, i was a pub manager not a great job but i loved it, nice local pub it was and was great, but now due to my mental break down, i am told work right now could make me ill again, personally i think im almost ready, i want to be back at work by the end of the year my team think thats unrealistic given the care i will need and there is a chance im going to get worst before better, as they want me to deal with things i never have yet. But i get no were near £500 a week, i earn about £9000 a year on my benefits.

I have had assessments in the past, and am currently signed off till 2014, but i think i might be going back for another one soon due to the new disability rules.

See i think im ready to start looking to go back to work, volunteer etc... but my team say no, who do ya listen 2.

 

[upthealbion1970]

I doubt that he is doing it out of the kindness of his heart, as you put it. It's his mrs. What would you do if it were your Mrs, or maybe one of your children.

I couldn't let a stranger do what I do, but it's tough as a man not to provide for your family - but nowhere near as hard as watching your mrs suffering.

 

[drew]

I couldn't let a stranger do what I do, but it's tough as a man not to provide for your family - but nowhere near as hard as watching your mrs suffering.

I understand what you say and would argue that you are providing for your family but in a different, but far greater way than what most people would perceive as the norm, ie just bringing cash into a household. Best wishes to you and your family.

 

[upthealbion1970]

I understand what you say and would argue that you are providing for your family but in a different, but far greater way than what most people would perceive as the norm, ie just bringing cash into a household. Best wishes to you and your family.

Thank you for your kind words Drew, mrs has been telling me the same thing since she became my boss

 

[jakarta]

i earn about £9000 a year on my benefits.

I'm sorry about your mental health problems but this quote says it all - you DON'T 'earn' £9000 a year - you are GIVEN it by me and all the others who actually work and earn a wage.....

 

[pasty]

Should be assessed on an individual bases as everyone has different needs ...

This. A cap may well weed out some of the work-shy benefit scroungers, but may also have a very harsh impact on those genuinely unable to work. I'm a great believer in some kind of means testing for all benefits.

 

[Falkor]

I'm sorry about your mental health problems but this quote says it all - you DON'T 'earn' £9000 a year - you are GIVEN it by me and all the others who actually work and earn a wage.....

Well technically im getting back what i paid in, so YOUR not giving me anything, and you try and live with what i do and see if i earn it or not.

 

[drew]

I'm sorry about your mental health problems but this quote says it all - you DON'T 'earn' £9000 a year - you are GIVEN it by me and all the others who actually work and earn a wage.....

I think you sum up the problem with the Tory ethos. You say you are sorry about his problems then leap to attack him just because he had the temerity to use the word earn rather than income. You don't appear to really care about his problems, just the amount of money in your own pocket!

 

[Dandyman]

Statement in response to the Institute for Fiscal Studies' report on poverty and universal credit | The Childrens Society

Bob Reitemeier, Chief Executive of The Children’s Society, said:

“The Universal Credit could reduce long-term poverty but, as the IFS points out, once other factors are taken into consideration, children will be much worse off.

“We are particularly concerned that the proposed cap on benefits will cut support to more than 200,000 children and potentially make 82,000 children homeless.

“The consequences of many more children being pushed into poverty are potentially devastating. The Children's Society's own research reveals that a decrease in family income directly relates to low well-being. Children in households where income has fallen are likely to be twice as unhappy as those in homes where income has risen. They are at greater risk of suffering from mental health issues and behavioural problems and may also be at risk of performing badly at school.

“If the Government does not take appropriate action, the UK is likely to be rooted firmly at the bottom end of international tables for children’s well-being for the foreseeable future.”

 

[drew]

Statement in response to the Institute for Fiscal Studies' report on poverty and universal credit | The Childrens Society

Bob Reitemeier, Chief Executive of The Children’s Society, said:

“The Universal Credit could reduce long-term poverty but, as the IFS points out, once other factors are taken into consideration, children will be much worse off.

“We are particularly concerned that the proposed cap on benefits will cut support to more than 200,000 children and potentially make 82,000 children homeless.

“The consequences of many more children being pushed into poverty are potentially devastating. The Children's Society's own research reveals that a decrease in family income directly relates to low well-being. Children in households where income has fallen are likely to be twice as unhappy as those in homes where income has risen. They are at greater risk of suffering from mental health issues and behavioural problems and may also be at risk of performing badly at school.

“If the Government does not take appropriate action, the UK is likely to be rooted firmly at the bottom end of international tables for children’s well-being for the foreseeable future.”

But surely that's a small price to pay when you consider the 'haves' will all have a little bit more to themselves!!!!