FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > housing benefit
housing benefit
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
good luck to them | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"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 | |||
"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 | |||
| |||
"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." 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. | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
| |||
"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."My cousin was told the same about a year ago so sadly nothing has changed. | |||
"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. 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." I have to agree, it's a really difficult one | |||
"Social cleansing and disgusting. " | |||
| |||
| |||
"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. | |||
| |||
"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."Did he tell you to get pregnant, or offer to get you pregnant?  | |||
"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 ?" 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? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"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" | |||
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  | |||
" 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. " 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 | |||
| |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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 *used to commute over an hour to London for a retail job. I'm sure cleaners/canteen workers, etc can do the same." | |||
"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?. | |||
| |||
"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 | |||
"£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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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 | |||
| |||
| |||
"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 "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. | |||
"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 . " 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. | |||
| |||
"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 . 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." 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. | |||
"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?" 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 | |||
| |||
"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? 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. | |||
"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 . 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. 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. | |||
"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 . 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. 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? | |||
| |||
"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? 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 | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
| |||
"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!" 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 | |||
" 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? | |||
"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. | |||
"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." 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 | |||
"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. 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. | |||
"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!" 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? | |||
"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! 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! | |||
| |||
"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! 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. | |||
| |||
"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! 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! | |||
"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." Working class/poor and underclass aren't the same. | |||
| |||
| |||
"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 | |||
"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! 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. | |||
| |||
"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! 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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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! 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." Perhaps a course on correct use of contraception would have been more beneficial to them than throwing money at them for years... | |||
"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? | |||
"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. 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. | |||
"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 ?" 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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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! 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. 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 | |||
"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. | |||
"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! 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. 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. | |||
"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! 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. 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 | |||
"...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. | |||
| |||
| |||
" 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." *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. | |||
" 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. *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. " Avoiding the problem of it now being a reoccurring issue I see? | |||
"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! 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. 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? | |||
| |||
"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! 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. 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 | |||
| |||
"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" | |||
"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! 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. 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. | |||
" 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. *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. 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. | |||
" 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. *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. 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. " 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. | |||
"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" That's like saying people on benefits don't receive thier job seekers tesco and whoever else they buy stuff off does. | |||
"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" 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. | |||
"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! 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. 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
| |||
"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" the top 1% pay 25% of all income tax Bottom 50% of earners pay less than 10% of the total bill. | |||
"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. | |||
| |||
" 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. *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. 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. 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. " 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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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? | |||
"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. | |||
" 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. *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. 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. 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. 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." 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. | |||
"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? | |||
" 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." 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? | |||
"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." Yes, independent...  | |||
"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. | |||
" 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. 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. | |||
" 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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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 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 | |||
"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 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. " 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. | |||
"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 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. | |||
"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. "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. | |||
"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.
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.  | |||
| |||
