Need salary of £36,000 to take home more than benefits cap

Scroll to see replies

Not only should they work- I'd have the ones who aren't working and are claiming breaking rocks (when they werent attending interviews) just to act as a deterrent to claiming!

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 21

billydisco

Original post by scrotgrot

I suspect they cancel it or it gets them into debt :dontknow:

I just looked and the cheapest Sky bundle is £21.50 a month. Someone on £71 JSA certainly can't afford to blow a third of their income on that. Half their income is probably going to energy bills, about £20 to council tax contribution and rent contribution, £15 to food and £5 to bus fares on signing-on day. I just don't see how anyone could see it as a cosseted existence.

When kids are involved, things might be different, and maybe with certain disabilities which don't impair function that much or require specialist equipment (though there is already a tiered system in place).

Isn't the £71 a week? so £284 a month?

Reply 22

guglemugle

I disagree with the benefits system in general:

- For one, there are way too many people on benefits, who, in reality do not need to be.
- The incentive to work is lowered as the benefits are too high, leading to higher unemployment rates and higher rates of teenage pregnancies.
- The benefits should make life uncomfortable, and thus, increasing the incentive to work.

Reply 23

billydisco

Original post by scrotgrot

You really are disgusting, especially with your comments about disabled people.

You do realise every time you make a statement without elaborating its like you're throwing your dummy out of the pram but you cannot say why.

So, how about you tell me what exactly was wrong with what I said?

-What else would you like disabled people to have beyond food, water, warmth, shelter?
-I think the definition of "disabled" is weaker nowadays than what it is supposed to be

I cannot see how either of the above are disgusting? Just because somebody is disabled doesn't mean they should have a higher quality of life better than somebody not disabled and not working! Somebody else already suggested a not-working, non-disabled person should only have the basics, so what is wrong suggesting a disabled person has these same basics?

Reply 24

Quady

Original post by scrotgrot

I suspect they cancel it or it gets them into debt :dontknow:

Can't cancel a contract though...

£71 is weekly, not monthly, so its a 14th of their income (7.2%)

£35/week on energy bills? :/
Perhaps if they keep the windows open in the winter and use the oven to heat the house.

Reply 25

Quady

Original post by billydisco

Isn't the £71 a week? so £284 a month?

You don't know how many weeks there are in a month do you?

Reply 26

billydisco

Original post by Quady

You don't know how many weeks there are in a month do you?

£71 a week multiplied by 4 weeks is £284 a month......

Reply 27

scrotgrot

Original post by billydisco

Then we can lower the cap even further, right?

No. The benefits cap was based on sensationalist tabloid stories about people who had been evicted, possibly because of benefits being too low in the first place, and housed for a few weeks in emergency B&B accommodation at great cost to the taxpayer. The tabloids extrapolated those few weeks to a whole year to claim people were receiving £50,000 etc in benefits. Another common situation for these stories was extremely unusual families with some 12 kids, and while I don't believe child benefit should be given beyond replacement rate, people didn't take into account the costs of bringing up those children, all they saw was the headline figure.

Therefore yes, you can lower the benefits cap even further and it won't impact on anyone. But it's completely pointless if you want to cut benefit expenditure* because such a tiny part of it is spent on these highly aberrant cases. The benefit cap is a measure to grab headlines and convince people that that is a normal amount for benefit recipients to earn.

*But unfortunately voters in this country don't want to cut benefits expenditure, they want to cut benefits: the focus is vindictiveness, wanting to see people pitched into misery so they have someone to feel superior to while lining the boss's pockets with their gruelling, underpaid jobs.

They wouldnt have had the 4th child if the child benefit didn't increase beyond the 3rd.....

Incidentally, limiting child benefit I agree with. I believe there may already be a limit but it is at like 6 children, don't quote me on this though.

Reply 28

Quady

Original post by billydisco

£71 a week multiplied by 4 weeks is £284 a month......

Only if you are in Feb excluding leap years.

£308/month

Reply 29

Profesh

Original post by NathanDYEL

So so true !! I know a lot of people on benefits with 100inch Plasma Tvs, with sky and Netflix....They shouldn't just be given money like you said. Food vouchers would be more appropiate and a limit on the electricity/water/Gas they use. And since they are all getting this luxurious lifestyle for free they should atleast be made to take part in some community based work instead of sitting at home eating Family Gut buckets from KFC.

No, you don't: in fact I'd venture that you don't know anyone with a 'hundred-inch' plasma-screen TV. Stop talking cock.

Reply 30

billydisco

Original post by scrotgrot

Are there people who do not work, who "take home" more money than people who do work?

As I said previously, somebody on minimum wage takes home about £11.7k and I know for a fact that 2 years ago a single non-working mum with two children received £19k a year in benefits (found this out through a government benefits calculator website).....

Reply 31

james22

Original post by billydisco

Child benifits apply to everyone, even people who work so take them of the 19k.

Reply 32

CandyKoRn

Original post by billydisco

What a ****** you are!

Not only should they work- I'd have the ones who aren't working and are claiming breaking rocks (when they werent attending interviews) just to act as a deterrent to claiming!

Are you an advisor in a job center?

Sounds like it.

They're all ****ers too.

Reply 33

James222

very few people get 25,000 and it includes stuff like housing benefit

Reply 34

TerribleTej

Original post by Quady

Make it uncomfortable for the disabled and carers?

Why do you want to put people off being carers? Way cheaper than the state picking up the full tab.

I should have been clear on my statement, I have no issue with the state spending tons of money caring for those those who are clearly disabled (physically or mentally) rather than those who are just depressed like "white dee" on benefits street. Adding to that I have no problems with caring for the elderly either, its just that we shouldn't be caring for the working age people who are able to work normally but choose not to do so because they can easily live on benefits. You may think that I am some high class rich kid, but in fact my family is easily in the bottom 20% of income levels and we don't even get benefits! Even if we did we find it more satisfying spending the money we earn rather than spending someone else's hard earned money.

Original post by NathanDYEL

Exactly, while my family can't even afford to have proper broadband yet alone T.V. we use freeview and the free sky channels and we put up with it, why should those on benefits get money for sky sports, 100 inch plasma tele's when they are not working, that is luxury which the government just shouldn't give, without them I could imagine all those working aged people on benefits getting bored and forced to get out and look for a job, but no one in the government has the balls to do that because they will simply lose millions in votes to other parties. all my friends on benefits can afford to eat out for lunch on a daily basis while they could easily have packed lunch, when my dad lost his job a year ago he used to get up everyday and leave at 8am and coming back only when all places were closed in order to find a job, he did that for 6 straight months before giving up and starting his own home-based business which allows him to keep up with daily costs but not much else. He also did a couple months of part-time volunteering for a charity in order to get more experience but he gave up on that once he started his business.

Original post by scrotgrot

Why should it be uncomfortable? What is so great about everyone busting their ass to look for work, especially in a knowledge economy with an elastic labour force which means there are loads more unemployed than vacancies even at the best of times? It's pointless forcing everyone to look for work and paying to administer that. Just shut all the job centres and give them the money as a birthright.

And I assure you nobody on out-of-work benefits can afford Sky. They may have a TV because they're a one-off cost, they may have got it before they lost their job or on Freecycle, and it's easy enough to dodge the TV licence. It may be the case that luxuries are affordable with family/child-related benefits which I do think are an area which could potentially be looked at, though since Hitler it's been a bit of a taboo trying to tell people how many kids they're allowed to have.

I agree on your final comment, but see what I just said.

Do you really think our population and economy is knowledgeable? 10 years down the line I see Asian countries taking up most of those new knowledge jobs simply because on average their are twice as smart as us and only cost half as much, the point is not forcing them to work, is to get them to be creative and productive with the time they have, I have no problem with that but the only way you can get most of them to do that is to force them to look for jobs, make them realise that their laziness has made it even difficult for them to find a job and thus force them to be creative in order to live normally. Like my dad a fair amount of them have the brains to start up their own business' its just that they choose not to do so, but over time these businesses can expand and hire more people so in the long term it is much more beneficial rather than having millions of lazy worked aged people ruining their lives at home by not doing anything.

I can assure you that there are enough people on benefits who can afford to buy the most expensive technology out there, because I personally know a large amount of them, when I asked them about it they say that the government gives them the money and (obviously) they will happily take it, I would like to see what happens when the government decides that welfare is just too expensive and decide's to make huge cuts everywhere in order to pay off its debts.

Reply 35

Laus2

Stop belittling poor people.

I hope none of you ever have to go on benefits.

Reply 36

Laus2

I am a carer (for the time being) and I get just over £6000 a year for 35 hours of work; that's pitiful, and should be illegal. Thankfully I love the lady I help and her daughter is a delight, but the government really have a lot to answer for.

Edit: And people saying claiming benefits is preferable to being in work haven't a clue.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 37

DanB1991

Original post by Laus2

Firstly I have never been on benefits, have I struggled and been able to claim them? Yes.

I've also worked in fairly comfortably paid jobs that gave me less than I could get on benefits.

I've also seen "benefit" household where they have internet, digital TV, consoles, new video games etc. Benefits exist solely to keep a roof over your head, heating and food.

Now not sure what the point your on about bringing the boarderline illegal practices care workers have to suffer. However it just support the argument why should someone who works full time earn less than someone who does not work?

Reply 38

day_dreamer

Original post by NathanDYEL

Whilst I think the benefit cap is set too high, as many people who are working don't earn this. But I have pick up on people commenting on Sky, Plasma screens for those who on benefits etc.
1. Sky and other tv subscriptions/contracts require a contract and they are not always easy to cancel, even when you do there are often fees. Mobile phone contracts are perfect examples of this.
2. People may have brought the plasma tv when they were working, when they become unemployed it may take weeks or months to sell possessions. So there not necessarily quick ways of getting cash.
3. If you have debts (credit cards/loans), yes you can consolidate them but they still need to be paid. This can take a massive chunk of the benefits.
4. food, sometimes it can be cheaper to buy junk food then healthy food. You can buy a ready meal for 99p how much healthy food would 99p buy?
5. A big chunk of benefits is being paid to private landlords because there aren't enough council homes.

However as I said giving vouchers instead of money, is probably the best option. But there needs to be ways of cancelling contracts sky/mobile phones/gym (which people could afford, when they were working) without fees. And maybe the government could get involved with the banks and have some sort of 6month grace period where if you lose you job you don't have to pay the debt for 6 months, giving people time to get a job/sort out their finances.

In order to cut benefits, more councils houses need to be built, right to buy should be scrapped and the idea that people get council houses for life and pass it down to their children also need to be stopped, perhaps a reassessment after 5-10 years. This would stop/reduce (the amount) of housing benefits being paid to landlords, (who are making money from the tax payer), scrapping right to buy, means that more houses would be available and a reassessment after a few years would mean that there was an easier and quicker way to move people in/out of houses depending on their needs.

Child benefit should be limited to the first two children. Simples.

Any other ideas?

Reply 39

Laus2

Original post by DanB1991

I despise the attitude that people generally have towards people on benefits. They recommend food tokens or other such demeaning and undignified alternatives. If someone cannot work, for whatever reason, they should not have to suffer - that's why we have a safety net. Yes, some people abuse this safety net, but those people are in the minority. Most of the welfare budget is spent on pensioners.

Not really. I'd wager I have a higher sense of self-esteem and self-worth because I do something I enjoy. Money helps, but it doesn't solve everything. I'd sooner work and get little than not work and face judgement from most of society who don't know what they are talking about.