Saint Mikey Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 (edited) A good article on the BBC here, about the capping to £26k: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185 Matey reckons he'll have to choose between eating and heating his home. Errr, no: 1) Lose Sky TV (Freeview is free) 2) Lose Internet (Use the Library) 3) Don't spend that £20 a week down the pub 4) Give up smoking & drinking 5) The whole family doesn't NEED a mobile phone each If you think all this is unfair, then: 1) Don't have 7 kids and expect someone else to pay for it 2) Don't expect someone to pay your way, when you or your wife haven't worked for 10 years. If you look at his justification in the article, it points to where attitudes are all wrong. There is no basic HUMAN RIGHT to entertainment, technology or luxury items (fags & booze). Expecially if you've been completely irresponsible in your family planning, or haven't worked for such a long time. These things are LUXURIES! Benefits should pay for the basics first, if there's money left over, then great - fill yer boots. The priorities are all wrong, even down to the quality of food they are buying, but spending on luxury items. Edited 1 February, 2012 by Saint Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 I agree with Labour's key sticking point on this one..... yes, there should be a cap but it should take into account regional average wages and living costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingbattigger Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 I agree with Labour's key sticking point on this one..... yes, there should be a cap but it should take into account regional average wages and living costs. This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 Everybody has their own priorities but strange that both my wife and I earn a similar amount over the average wage and decide that Sky TV isn't worth the extra over Freeview (we'd only use it for the football and even then only occasionally), but them them it is an essential spend with heating and eating considered for the chop first. Maybe I'm just tight. Should this family have to chop £82 a week off their income/expenditure I don't doubt that it would be very dificult for them however, £24 cans and 200 cigs a week, sky TV and mobiles for all a week really aren't a necessity. Personally my feeling is that living on benefits alone SHOULD be very dificult (those not working due to disability etc excepted). Whilst it is right that I am taxed to support others who are less well off I would much rather this family's income was capped and the money used to support families who are getting to work but are struggling due to low pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 Actually, how much to ciggarettes cost these days? 200 per week, assuming £5 for a box of 20 (??) works out at £50 per week. 61% of the saving required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 I'd also suggest that as a software writer, he clearly hasn't been looking very hard for work over the last 11 years. Programming and web development are two industries where spending and employment has remained very high despite massive job losses up and down the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 Actually, how much to ciggarettes cost these days? 200 per week, assuming £5 for a box of 20 (??) works out at £50 per week. 61% of the saving required. And the rest. Nearer £7 these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 I think it's good that we have a government that is finally dealing with Labours benefits slobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 What is needed though is a proper scale that means - if your benefits total say 30k - and you are offered a job that pays 15k you should should HAVE to take it but in the knowledge that you DONT lose all your benefits - eg your benefits drop to 15k as well giving you an incentive to get back to work. The ticky issue with this though is quite rightly, that there are plenty of folk out there earning 15k who dont get any benefits apart from Child allowance, and tax credits. There is no fair system unless you set a regional minimum expected income based on your number of kids and circumstances - and then you HAVE to take a job that is available and offered and you are 'topped' up with benefit to that level... even this is not totally fair - I could argue taht having paid in continuously for nearly 20 years, I should get something if I was made redundant, more than just 60 quid a week job seekers - afterall, I would get housing benefit if renting, yet get feck all because I have a mortgage... how does any Government balance the needs of those who genuinely, through no fault of their own have no economic benefit in working (in fact are potentially far worse off) and encourage them back to work, versus the the needs of thsoe who have never taken anything out, yet get feck all if circumstances suddenly change... should I be forced to sell up etc, whilst others would get housing benefit to allow them to stay in their rented home? Is this fair? I dont have the answer and as I lean to a more socially aware politic, I do not think its as easy as simply capping or removing benefits - it just further disengages with those who need the most motivation and are all ready potentailly in a social 'underclass'. The sysytem needs to reward those that actively look and accept work, without drastically reducing their income, at the same time, penalising those who are simply too idle and wont. In addition, like in Germany, there should be a unemployment benefit level taht is based on your last income and how much/years you have paid into the system - they have something like 80% of slaary for 3 months and a slowly reducing scale regardless of what your partner earns - thus you will need to cut out luxuries as expected, but wont be staring down the repocession nightmare within a realistic timeframe of finding a new job with a salary that will allow you to stay put and not uproot the family etc... just seems fairer to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 Personally i'd have a two pronged approach. A benefits cap and a rent cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Mikey Posted 1 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 1 February, 2012 Personally i'd have a two pronged approach. A benefits cap and a rent cap. To be fair, having got ourselves into this mess over a succession of government's Welfare decisions - not just the last one. You can't just cut off the 'lifeline' like that. Just watch the petty theft, mugging and burglary rates shoot up. A slow squeeze on the scroungers and idle is what most people would want - not, the people that do need help and deserve it, having paid into the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 Actually, how much to ciggarettes cost these days? 200 per week, assuming £5 for a box of 20 (??) works out at £50 per week. 61% of the saving required. Cant believe they spend over £1,900pa on electricity and gas for a three bed house either. I pay £1,250pa for a 4 bed house and the thermostat is at a constant 22c 6am-midnight 7 days a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 I'd just shoot the ****er dead. the sponging ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrollman no2 Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 I think the priority should be for the government to cap what they pay to private landlords.The rents these landlords charge for basic accomodation is a scandle and they know they can get away with it. If the government said they would only cover a certain amount,then they would have to charge a lower rent or risk not having any income at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 I agree with Labour's key sticking point on this one..... yes, there should be a cap but it should take into account regional average wages and living costs. I don't, if they have a decent place in Tower Hamlets I'd rather a hard working bloke that works in Canary Wharf gets to move in than some slob that can relocate to Barnsley/ Halifax or some other hell hole with houses at £400 p/m rent. If that family wants to stay the bloke can go and get a job and pay rent privately! Oh, and benefits should be paid in food/ milk/ clothing/ nappy coupons too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Mikey Posted 1 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 1 February, 2012 I don't, if they have a decent place in Tower Hamlets I'd rather a hard working bloke that works in Canary Wharf gets to move in than some slob that can relocate to Barnsley/ Halifax or some other hell hole with houses at £400 p/m rent. If that family wants to stay the bloke can go and get a job and pay rent privately! Oh, and benefits should be paid in food/ milk/ clothing/ nappy coupons too. Agree with this. With the technology available these days, you should be able to load a card with credit that can then used for certain items. Anything that isn't fags, booze and fast food outlets - that would be a start. Giving cash in the hand to these people is mental. The kids don't see the money and have a underprivileged upbringing due to their irresponsible parents. Then hey presto - by the time they are 16 years old, they are enlisting for the ‘have a kid, don’t work and get free cash’ programme. A vicious circle of producing unintelligent, selfish, lazy, scroungers… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 Agree with this. With the technology available these days, you should be able to load a card with credit that can then used for certain items. Anything that isn't fags, booze and fast food outlets - that would be a start. Giving cash in the hand to these people is mental. The kids don't see the money and have a underprivileged upbringing due to their irresponsible parents. Then hey presto - by the time they are 16 years old, they are enlisting for the ‘have a kid, don’t work and get free cash’ programme. A vicious circle of producing unintelligent, selfish, lazy, scroungers… Since when did you turn right-wing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 Since when did you turn right-wing? It tends to kick in at the same time that the common sense gene becomes active. Something to do with the neuro inter-dependence principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Mikey Posted 1 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 1 February, 2012 Since when did you turn right-wing? You must be mistaking me for the kid, who has nearly the same name as me. Not sure I have aired my political views before... However, I am a socialist at heart and have always voted Labour. But, socialism requires everyone who can, to contribute. These people don't and just take, putting nothing back. It's the attitude that annoys me the most, 'I'm so poor, and the Gov isn't being fair'. Get a job and don't have 7 kids = problem solved. People have been allowed to shirk their responsiblities for so long, it has become ingrained to become a lifestyle choice. That is not socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 I don't, if they have a decent place in Tower Hamlets I'd rather a hard working bloke that works in Canary Wharf gets to move in than some slob that can relocate to Barnsley/ Halifax or some other hell hole with houses at £400 p/m rent. If that family wants to stay the bloke can go and get a job and pay rent privately! Oh, and benefits should be paid in food/ milk/ clothing/ nappy coupons too. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 You must be mistaking me for the kid, who has nearly the same name as me. Apologies, my mistake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 Agree with this. With the technology available these days, you should be able to load a card with credit that can then used for certain items. Anything that isn't fags, booze and fast food outlets - that would be a start. Giving cash in the hand to these people is mental. The kids don't see the money and have a underprivileged upbringing due to their irresponsible parents. Then hey presto - by the time they are 16 years old, they are enlisting for the ‘have a kid, don’t work and get free cash’ programme. A vicious circle of producing unintelligent, selfish, lazy, scroungers… The drug addicts will just sell the milk, clothes, food etc and shoplift more to cover the shortfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 I think the priority should be for the government to cap what they pay to private landlords.The rents these landlords charge for basic accomodation is a scandle and they know they can get away with it. If the government said they would only cover a certain amount,then they would have to charge a lower rent or risk not having any income at all. Exactly, this would also have effect of bringing down house prices which are frankly ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 I agree with Labour's key sticking point on this one..... yes, there should be a cap but it should take into account regional average wages and living costs. IDS adressed this one on TV Monday.If you follow Labour's point to its logical conclusion, you'll end up with regional differences for all benefits. After all the cost of living is higher in some of the South East than it is up North and in Scotland. It costs more for a disabled person to live in London than Milliband's Doncaster constitancy. How would Red Ed feel if there was a regional disability benefit, or regional dole money, and it ended up meaning less for Labour supporting areas. Labour's opposition is just opposition for the sake of it. Had a reginional average been written into the bill, they would have found another small point to use as an excuse to oppose the bill. My opinion is that the cap should be set as follows.: It should be set at the minimum wage for full time work, plus any housing benefit/WFTB/ Child benefit assessed on a case to case basis, like a working person is. The benefit system should pay the same as the poorest working people are, not the average. I have blokes working for me on £13,000, its plain wrong that people on benefits can earn twice that, and unbelievable that people still dont think that's enough. And before anyone starts, yes they should be paid more (but they aren't going to be, so forget that one), and the wages are nothing to do with me, I'm just a Manager not on the board. They are decent hard working people, and it makes my blood boil that they are the poorest in society, below people on welfare. Where's the incentive to go out and get a job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 (edited) I've got mixed feelings on this. On the surface, who could have any problem with a benefits cap? Seems entirely reasonable. Problem is, the end game, getting people into work, is going to be difficult to realise. Unemployment is at its highest level for 18 years, and I'm not sure that's because everyone has suddenly decided they want to live off the state. The case that Saint Mikey refers to seems very easy to pull apart. The bloke should give up his ciggies, beer, whatever. Of course, the irony is that most of that beer and ciggie money is going straight back to the exchequer - so it's not like the govt is paying 7quid a pack to support a ciggie habit, is it? I'm sure it's going to be a very popular policy, but for me, it's just another case of the government trying to save money by going after the people least able to defend themselves - and not really considering the consequences. Take a look at how well the US' welfare-to-work programs worked out in a depressed jobs market. Sounded great on paper, but it just resulted in single-parents having to do 4 hour round trips on public transport to do a job on minimum wage - their kids often left to their own devices while the parent was out working for free. I think that we definitely need to look at the problem of non-working families. However, we need to take a holistic view of the problem, and engineer a solution that addresses the root causes without creating unwanted side-effects. The real problem is that it doesn't pay to work. The reason it doesn't pay to work is because the cost of living is too high - for numerous reasons. High rents / mortgages, high tax, cost of childcare, etc. That's the fundamental issue here, and the Government has zero interest in addressing it. This policy is just populist papering over the cracks that'll just create more problems, for working and non-working people alike. Edited 1 February, 2012 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Mikey Posted 1 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 1 February, 2012 The case that SuperMikey refers to seems very easy to pull apart. FFS. I'm going to have to change my username, if people keep thinking I'm the Uni dropout... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 (edited) A good article on the BBC here, about the capping to £26k: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185 200 fags and a large pouch of baccy every week, no wonder they haven't got time to go to work.No smoking in the workplace must be a really downer for them.Ahh those were the good old days when people just lit up at their desk or on the shop floor. I had a colleague,smoked 40 a day, don't know what he'd do nowadays (well if he wasn't dead anyway) cos not being able to smoke and work at the same time would have put him into the nut house. Edited 1 February, 2012 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 FFS. I'm going to have to change my username, if people keep thinking I'm the Uni dropout... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 I don't, if they have a decent place in Tower Hamlets I'd rather a hard working bloke that works in Canary Wharf gets to move in than some slob that can relocate to Barnsley/ Halifax or some other hell hole with houses at £400 p/m rent. If that family wants to stay the bloke can go and get a job and pay rent privately! Oh, and benefits should be paid in food/ milk/ clothing/ nappy coupons too. This ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 I'm all in favour of a cap in principle. Cameron was on the news last week saying that benefits of £26k is equivalent to a pre-tax salary of £35k. I've worked hard all my life since leaving school 20 years ago and I've never earned anything like that kind of money, so why the hell should people just expect to be given that amount from public funds? One woman was complaining about the cap on the basis that she would have to move out of her nice flat and into somewhere cheaper where she doesn't know anybody. Well boo-hoo - it happened to me once when I lost my job and had to take lower paid work; I couldn't afford the rent and had to live somewhere cheaper and not as nice. Life is just sh*t and unfair sometimes and you have to deal with it - this woman has obviously never heard the saying "beggars can't be choosers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefunkygibbons Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 As well as the momentary cap, I would support a lifetime limit on benefits, say 5 years out of one's total working life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 I think that we definitely need to look at the problem of non-working families. However, we need to take a holistic view of the problem, and engineer a solution that addresses the root causes without creating unwanted side-effects. The real problem is that it doesn't pay to work. The reason it doesn't pay to work is because the cost of living is too high - for numerous reasons. High rents / mortgages, high tax, cost of childcare, etc. That's the fundamental issue here, and the Government has zero interest in addressing it. This policy is just populist papering over the cracks that'll just create more problems, for working and non-working people alike. Curates egg. The availability of jobs has very little to do with whether it is right that someone on benefits should be better off than someone of average wages. That will always be wrong in my view, reagrdless of unemployment rate. It is also undoubtedly true that some people on benefits squander much of the income intended for their children on gambling, fags and booze, so I have some sympathy for the vouchers idea, though not sure if it could be made to work in practice. Agree about the high cost of living. Whilst the government cant influence the price of utilities or food - its policy can have a massive influence on the availability and price of housing. British housing is awful compared to almost any other industrialised country. Generally too cramped and small, hugely energy inefficient and way too expensive. Houses arent dear to build - they are made expensive by lack of supply and artificially inflated land prices. You can build a 1,500sq ft / 150sq m house on a quarter of an acre for £150,000. Instead we build 800sq ft houses 16 to the acre for £300,000. The government could easily, over the space of 20 years, transform the quality of peoples lives by making available much lower cost, much higher quality housing. Build 300,000 homes per year for 10 years and house prices and rents would fall. It wouldnt need to cost the taxpayer anything. The present system forces house builders to tie up capital in large land banks which may or may not get planning permission at some stage. As agricultural land a farm might worth £4,000 per acre, but once it gets planning permission it can be worth £2m per acre. That kind of 'pot luck' speculation doesnt do anyone any favours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 FFS. I'm going to have to change my username, if people keep thinking I'm the Uni dropout... Soz mate! Edited ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 1 February, 2012 Share Posted 1 February, 2012 Curates egg. The availability of jobs has very little to do with whether it is right that someone on benefits should be better off than someone of average wages. That will always be wrong in my view, reagrdless of unemployment rate. It is also undoubtedly true that some people on benefits squander much of the income intended for their children on gambling, fags and booze, so I have some sympathy for the vouchers idea, though not sure if it could be made to work in practice. Agree about the high cost of living. Whilst the government cant influence the price of utilities or food - its policy can have a massive influence on the availability and price of housing. British housing is awful compared to almost any other industrialised country. Generally too cramped and small, hugely energy inefficient and way too expensive. Houses arent dear to build - they are made expensive by lack of supply and artificially inflated land prices. You can build a 1,500sq ft / 150sq m house on a quarter of an acre for £150,000. Instead we build 800sq ft houses 16 to the acre for £300,000. The government could easily, over the space of 20 years, transform the quality of peoples lives by making available much lower cost, much higher quality housing. Build 300,000 homes per year for 10 years and house prices and rents would fall. It wouldnt need to cost the taxpayer anything. The present system forces house builders to tie up capital in large land banks which may or may not get planning permission at some stage. As agricultural land a farm might worth £4,000 per acre, but once it gets planning permission it can be worth £2m per acre. That kind of 'pot luck' speculation doesnt do anyone any favours. I've long argued for a massive rebuilding programme. Needs to happen, and priority should go to working families. That is an example of why it would pay to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jones91 Posted 3 February, 2012 Share Posted 3 February, 2012 People who have paid into the system should be able to receive help (based on how much they have contributed). The scroungers should be given basic food rations like during the war (which they have to do community service for). Also, a sign outside their home saying 'I'm on benefits'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now