Jobless with large families could lose benefits

[pap]

Politically, this is quite the spicy meatball.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214315/Jobless-big-families-lose-benefits-Osborne-vows-slash-10bn-welfare-bill.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

The Conservative position is that jobless parents should have to weigh up the decision that the employed have to make?

 

Can I afford a(nother) child?

 

As of yet, there are no concrete indications as to the implementation, but the Daily Mail reports that those with larger families may lose benefits normally ascribed on a per child basis.

 

I could accept this as a go-forward measure. Let parents know future kids won't be covered. Would stop quite a few kids being born for cynical reasons, such as getting further up the housing priority list.

 

My concern is that it'll be implemented horribly. The coalition hasn't done much well. The end to universal child benefit has thrown up some weird anomalies. Ironically enough, it's the traditional one bread-winner family that is hardest hit. This superficially wonderful notion of capping housing benefit at 400ukp a week is also starting to bite. There has been a 44% increase in families on housing benefit staying in bed and breakfasts. The poor are being moved out of London.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/sep/17/homeless-families-bed-and-breakfast

 

As a long-term strategy, this could actually be a useful piece of social engineering. On current form, I can't see the coalition implementing anything but short-term slash and burn, with potentially devastating social consequences.

 

Have at it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

So lets get this stright, you could "accept this as a go forward measure" , but only if it's done nicely by Labour?

[Hockey_saint]

I like the latest wheeze they've (the coalition government) come out with(bare in mind we're a nation of part time workers):

 

"if you have a part-time job and work less than 35 hours a week (for example the disabled who often can't do much more) and claim rent rebate (I think it's called Housing benefit) for such a low income, you'll be treated as unemployed and asked to attend training sessions, look for a minimum amount of jobs or face the threat of being "sanctioned" and having this housing benefit taken away from you".

 

Really, I don't see the sense in that.

[trousers]

I could accept this as a go-forward measure. Let parents know future kids won't be covered. Would stop quite a few kids being born for cynical reasons, such as getting further up the housing priority list.

 

My concern is that it'll be implemented horribly.

 

Agree. The Tories: often great ideas, often poorly executed.

 

Maybe we should privatise the implementation wing of political parties and the civil service to make the delivery part of it more efficient and effective....

[pap]

So lets get this stright, you could "accept this as a go forward measure" , but only if it's done nicely by Labour?

 

To clarify my position completely; I have no problem saying "we're not paying for new kids".

 

I do have a problem with the government saying "ah, you already have a load of kids. We're going to stop paying for them", mostly because of the problems it'll create now and in the future for kids with jobless parents.

 

Why should kids that are here now be additionally punished? I've said before that cutting benefits doesn't necessarily lead to every parent going out and getting a job. Many will stay in place and find means of dubious legality to survive.

[bridge too far]

To clarify my position completely; I have no problem saying "we're not paying for new kids".

 

I do have a problem with the government saying "ah, you already have a load of kids. We're going to stop paying for them", mostly because of the problems it'll create now and in the future for kids with jobless parents.

 

Why should kids that are here now be additionally punished? I've said before that cutting benefits doesn't necessarily lead to every parent going out and getting a job. Many will stay in place and find means of dubious legality to survive.

 

Additionally, the Child Poverty Action group pointed out that many parents in receipt of benefits ARE working but they're so low paid they need state support.

 

Maybe, instead of looking to the state to support people who ARE working for low wages, we should be expecting employers to pay a living wage? It's all very well the government saying people should not be better off on benefits than working. Some people might feel that, with wages so low, they're actually better looking after their families by claiming benefits.

 

Make those employers paying low wages pay a decent wage instead.

[pap]

Agree. The Tories: often great ideas, often poorly executed.

 

I actually think a lot of that is by design, trousers. Take this 400UKP cap on housing benefit as an example. Tidings of families living in compressed squalor or being moved out of London are not a surprise. Most political commentators predicted this.

 

Same sort of thing with this one. Shedding any lefty leanings for a second, I do think that the problem of long-term unemployed needs to be addressed. It's not sustainable, not remotely fair and I have zero time for people who boast of blagging the system.

 

That all said, the recurring justification that you'll hear from the long term unemployed is that it doesn't pay to work. Can't really argue with that in a lot of cases either. We do need a solution, but it needs to be holistic and realistic. All very well shovelling a load of claimants back into the working world as long as the jobs are there.

[Gemmel]

Some people might feel that, with wages so low, they're actually better looking after their families by claiming benefits.

 

So by taking away those benefits that would surely end the debate that they are better off on benefits - Therefore they would have to work?

 

Or am I missing something

[pap]

So by taking away those benefits that would surely end the debate that they are better off on benefits - Therefore they would have to work?

 

Or am I missing something

 

Only all the jobs that used to exist here but don't anymore

[bridge too far]

So by taking away those benefits that would surely end the debate that they are better off on benefits - Therefore they would have to work?

 

Or am I missing something

 

You're only quoting half of what I said. Many families receiving benefits of one sort or another ARE already working but their wages are so low they need state support. So you and I, as taxpayers, are subsidising employers who are paying crap wages.

 

Of course it's wrong that people should be better off out of work on benefits, but in reality withdrawing or cutting their benefits won't automatically mean they'll all go out and get work because the work isn't out there at the moment. And the net outcome will be even more people homeless and even more children in poverty.

 

Apart from us subsidising employers who pay crap wages, another point that needs addressing is the question of childcare costs. It's crazy that a parent can't afford to go to work because of this.

[swannymere]

Now i consider myself to be slightly left of center politics wise but even in the village i live there are a couple of examples of jobless couples boasting about having as many children as possible to get higher up the housing list and to gain more benefits.

I don't know how it currently works but i think that the government should pay for the first two children but after that nothing, child benefit might be for the child but it's being abused by the parents to buy big TV's, cars, holidays, booze and fags.

I don't see why they should be rewarded for having large families when they seem to struggle to control the 2 or 3 they have currently.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Make those employers paying low wages pay a decent wage instead.

 

If you do that BTF then the jobs end up in China and India.

[Window Cleaner]

If you do that BTF then the jobs end up in China and India.

 

 

As we see every week in France, the minimum wage here costs employers about £11 an hour when you factor in all the social charges. From that sum the employée gets just about £6 I think, all the rest is raked off by government and it's satellite henchmen.

Don't forget that's before a single penny of income tax is levied.

[Big Bad Bob]

You're only quoting half of what I said. Many families receiving benefits of one sort or another ARE already working but their wages are so low they need state support. So you and I, as taxpayers, are subsidising employers who are paying crap wages.

 

Of course it's wrong that people should be better off out of work on benefits, but in reality withdrawing or cutting their benefits won't automatically mean they'll all go out and get work because the work isn't out there at the moment. And the net outcome will be even more people homeless and even more children in poverty.

 

Apart from us subsidising employers who pay crap wages, another point that needs addressing is the question of childcare costs. It's crazy that a parent can't afford to go to work because of this.

 

This would be the same people that do the minimum 16 hours a week needed to get Tax Credits.

 

IIRC the Tax Credit level will boost your earnings up to or near the "average British wage" (on this I may be totally wrong).

 

So, if they can't manage their finances on the average British wage then we're stuffed.

 

And to be honest the Child Poverty Action group class you as in poverty if you don't have a 60" television in each bedroom and don't go on at least one family holiday per year.

 

and to answer Pap's point, if they are going to restrict Income Support to a certain level then they need to leave the people as they are now and then not Index Link it until the people who are having the Income Support not increased for every sprog they sprog catch up, then they start getting Index Linked again.

 

Or maybe the current lot can be reduced by the rate of inflation every year.....

[Hockey_saint]

This would be the same people that do the minimum 16 hours a week needed to get Tax Credits.

 

IIRC the Tax Credit level will boost your earnings up to or near the "average British wage" (on this I may be totally wrong).

 

So, if they can't manage their finances on the average British wage then we're stuffed.

 

And to be honest the Child Poverty Action group class you as in poverty if you don't have a 60" television in each bedroom and don't go on at least one family holiday per year.

 

and to answer Pap's point, if they are going to restrict Income Support to a certain level then they need to leave the people as they are now and then not Index Link it until the people who are having the Income Support not increased for every sprog they sprog catch up, then they start getting Index Linked again.

 

Or maybe the current lot can be reduced by the rate of inflation every year.....

 

I think you'll find it's only the disabled that qualify for tax credits after 16 hours of work a week (this however is being removed) and in fact I think it's more like 35.

[Big Bad Bob]

I think you'll find it's only the disabled that qualify for tax credits after 16 hours of work a week (this however is being removed) and in fact I think it's more like 35.

 

Nope, my brother in laws girlfriend is able bodied and she works 16 hours a week and gets tax credits for it...any less and she wouldn't qualify

[bridge too far]

Nope, my brother in laws girlfriend is able bodied and she works 16 hours a week and gets tax credits for it...any less and she wouldn't qualify

 

But I think that's changed to at least 30 hours unless you have children. The information is here:

 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/start/who-qualifies/workingtaxcredit/work.htm

 

 

[Whitey Grandad]

Well, Pap, I tend to agree with you. Has that got you worried?

[Wade Garrett]

We shouldn't pay benefits to the feckless workshy. The present system of rewarding the feckless with more money depending on how many kids they knock out is also wrong.

 

Please don't think that I am saying all benefits claimants fall into this category, they clearly don't.

 

We also shouldn't pay a fortune in housing benefits to unscrupulous landlords who are just milking the system with high rents.

[Thedelldays]

cant feed, dont breed

[Big Bad Bob]

But I think that's changed to at least 30 hours unless you have children. The information is here:

 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/start/who-qualifies/workingtaxcredit/work.htm

 

 

 

Ha, good, lazy *****'ll have to get off her arse and do some more work now...

 

We shouldn't pay benefits to the feckless workshy. The present system of rewarding the feckless with more money depending on how many kids they knock out is also wrong.

 

Please don't think that I am saying all benefits claimants fall into this category, they clearly don't.

 

We also shouldn't pay a fortune in housing benefits to unscrupulous landlords who are just milking the system with high rents.

 

That's one of the reasons why rent is being capped at £400pw (or whatever it is)

[pap]

Well, Pap, I tend to agree with you. Has that got you worried?

 

I actually spent a lot of time with my own grandad this weekend. I fear he may have poisoned me with his right-wing out-of-date views

[aintforever]

Welfare is a massive problem and will only get worse because of the pressure on wages to stay low due to competition with Asia and Immigration. It makes doing those low paid jobs more and more pointless. You can't blame people for sitting on their ass doing nothing when the net gain of doing some god-awful job is so small. There will always be some criminal scroungers who milk the system but I believe the vast majority of people want to work if it's worth it.

 

I think a universal benefit system is the only way forward so you don't lose a single penny of benefits if you take a job, everything you earn is on top. I would tax high earners more to help pay for it. There are too many people earning silly money for doing bog standard jobs like banking IMO. At least low earners spend pretty much all their money and put something back into the economy, don't just sit there with millions doing nothing in a bank.

Edited 8 October, 2012 by aintforever

[This Charming Man]

Politically, this is quite the spicy meatball.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214315/Jobless-big-families-lose-benefits-Osborne-vows-slash-10bn-welfare-bill.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

The Conservative position is that jobless parents should have to weigh up the decision that the employed have to make?

 

Can I afford a(nother) child?

 

As of yet, there are no concrete indications as to the implementation, but the Daily Mail reports that those with larger families may lose benefits normally ascribed on a per child basis.

 

I could accept this as a go-forward measure. Let parents know future kids won't be covered. Would stop quite a few kids being born for cynical reasons, such as getting further up the housing priority list.

 

My concern is that it'll be implemented horribly. The coalition hasn't done much well. The end to universal child benefit has thrown up some weird anomalies. Ironically enough, it's the traditional one bread-winner family that is hardest hit. This superficially wonderful notion of capping housing benefit at 400ukp a week is also starting to bite. There has been a 44% increase in families on housing benefit staying in bed and breakfasts. The poor are being moved out of London.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/sep/17/homeless-families-bed-and-breakfast

 

As a long-term strategy, this could actually be a useful piece of social engineering. On current form, I can't see the coalition implementing anything but short-term slash and burn, with potentially devastating social consequences.

 

Have at it.

 

Liverpool must be a city in shock this evening after this bombshell...

[Hockey_saint]

Nope, my brother in laws girlfriend is able bodied and she works 16 hours a week and gets tax credits for it...any less and she wouldn't qualify

 

See there's the problem..."able-bodied" what does that mean exactly? being that disabled doesn't mean "in a wheelchair"...she could have problems you just can't see. I think it's the old "hidden in plain sight" arguement.

[Toomer]

The low paid and people on benifits still manage to find the money to smoke and drink in a lot of cases, just the other week I had to go past the entrance to the Swan Centre in Easleigh whilst going to the company banking. There was two young mums with two kids each one in a push chair and the other was a todler both mums were smoking, mums and toldlers were eating Mcdonalds the mums were moaning about how short of money they were.

[South City Si]

Jobless/unemployed situation is the one that needs to be addressed, not pick on families with kids. Cutting benefits if there aren't enough jobs to go round or when those who have been stuck in a spiral of generational unemeployment and have never worked how do we expect people to hire them?

I would like to see a base payment with top up for the unemployed i.e. reduce level of payment to a 'minimum livable amount' and top-up to those who do some sort of work or training. As said before if there are no paid jobs or lack of experience I'd like to see the gov't create a register of charities, council jobs or community work that would with incentives employ them. We then we get people working, the work that otherwise people wouldn't or couldn't get done...done, and get those previously unemployable experience then to move on to full paid work.

[solentstars]

The low paid and people on benifits still manage to find the money to smoke and drink in a lot of cases, just the other week I had to go past the entrance to the Swan Centre in Easleigh whilst going to the company banking. There was two young mums with two kids each one in a push chair and the other was a todler both mums were smoking, mums and toldlers were eating Mcdonalds the mums were moaning about how short of money they were.

 

To be fair I worked with people who got great money saying how short of money they were and has for smoking.I find most smokers short on brain cells.

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

[Hockey_saint]

Jobless/unemployed situation is the one that needs to be addressed, not pick on families with kids. Cutting benefits if there aren't enough jobs to go round or when those who have been stuck in a spiral of generational unemeployment and have never worked how do we expect people to hire them?

I would like to see a base payment with top up for the unemployed i.e. reduce level of payment to a 'minimum livable amount' and top-up to those who do some sort of work or training. As said before if there are no paid jobs or lack of experience I'd like to see the gov't create a register of charities, council jobs or community work that would with incentives employ them. We then we get people working, the work that otherwise people wouldn't or couldn't get done...done, and get those previously unemployable experience then to move on to full paid work.

 

That was my point earlier; the latest government scheme is that if you do not earn that "base level" and you claim something like rent rebate to assist with rent costs, you will be treated as unemployed, suggested that you should leave the job you have and find a higher paid one....which I think is a bit silly.

[doddisalegend]

Additionally, the Child Poverty Action group pointed out that many parents in receipt of benefits ARE working but they're so low paid they need state support.

 

Maybe, instead of looking to the state to support people who ARE working for low wages, we should be expecting employers to pay a living wage? It's all very well the government saying people should not be better off on benefits than working. Some people might feel that, with wages so low, they're actually better looking after their families by claiming benefits.

 

Make those employers paying low wages pay a decent wage instead.

 

Which results in more unemployment becuase they'll just cut their staff numbers to keep the staffing costs the same......Not that there are any easy answers in this sort of debate.

Edited 9 October, 2012 by doddisalegend

[Hockey_saint]

Which results in more unemployment becuase they'll just cut their staff numbers to keep the staffing costs the same......Not that their are any easy answers in this sort of debate.

 

Nail on the head exactly; for example, companies pay a lot of people to work part time simply because they don't want to pay them higher levels so where is the sense in telling people they need to find higher paid work when it simply isn't about? Universal tax credit sounds like a creditable idea however.

[derry]

Pay in - get looked after, pay nothing in - get nothing out.

[pap]

Liverpool must be a city in shock this evening after this bombshell...

 

Not really. They've had to put up with southerners making unimaginative comments for years, love

[pap]

Pay in - get looked after, pay nothing in - get nothing out.

 

Short. Sweet. To the point.

 

Interestingly enough, a contributions-based welfare system is Frank Field's big idea. I'm all for it, as long as we think of some imaginative ways to clear some of the more obvious obstacles, such as child care and housing costs.

[Big Bad Bob]

Short. Sweet. To the point.

 

Interestingly enough, a contributions-based welfare system is Frank Field's big idea. I'm all for it, as long as we think of some imaginative ways to clear some of the more obvious obstacles, such as child care and housing costs.

 

Child care is easily taken care off.

 

Everyone is chemically sterilised at birth and only when they can prove that they're in a stable, loving relationship and can afford to look after the children are the given the "antidote".

 

The antidote is only effective for 12 months too (or until pregnancy hits).

 

Would stop the proliferation of children that people can't afford.

[pap]

To be fair I worked with people who got great money saying how short of money they were and has for smoking.I find most smokers short on brain cells.

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

I'd give up, if I didn't think I'd become one of you afterwards

 

(credit goes to the man depicted in the avatar)

[derry]

Short. Sweet. To the point.

 

Interestingly enough, a contributions-based welfare system is Frank Field's big idea. I'm all for it, as long as we think of some imaginative ways to clear some of the more obvious obstacles, such as child care and housing costs.

 

In my childhood, parents had the responsibility and most accepted it. Children having babies, with parents or shotgun and lived with parents anyway. No job, live with parents. It's the breakdown of family responsibility that has ********ed everything. The backstops were never meant to be anything but temporary help. Another way would be a finite limit say 26 weeks then no more until contributions are up to date.

[bridge too far]

In my childhood, parents had the responsibility and most accepted it. Children having babies, with parents or shotgun and lived with parents anyway. No job, live with parents. It's the breakdown of family responsibility that has ********ed everything. The backstops were never meant to be anything but temporary help. Another way would be a finite limit say 26 weeks then no more until contributions are up to date.

 

But in 'your' day (and mine) it wasn't necessary for both parents to go out to work because, as one example, houses were affordable on a single wage. Both parents working these days IS family responsibility and these days those parents also find they have to house young adults who can't afford to live on their own (even some 30 - 40 year olds) as well as house elderly parents (as grandparents live so much longer these days, often with dementia). Where are they all supposed to sleep?

 

If young adults can't afford to live outwith their parents, how the hell are they supposed to find work if they can't afford to travel, and travel outside their home towns? If they can't afford to work, how can they make contributions?

 

With unemployment so high (and I'm talking full-time work, not part-time work which is being disingenuously being included in 'newly created jobs), there has to be a safety net, particularly for young people.

[derry]

But in 'your' day (and mine) it wasn't necessary for both parents to go out to work because, as one example, houses were affordable on a single wage. Both parents working these days IS family responsibility and these days those parents also find they have to house young adults who can't afford to live on their own (even some 30 - 40 year olds) as well as house elderly parents (as grandparents live so much longer these days, often with dementia). Where are they all supposed to sleep?

 

If young adults can't afford to live outwith their parents, how the hell are they supposed to find work if they can't afford to travel, and travel outside their home towns? If they can't afford to work, how can they make contributions?

 

With unemployment so high (and I'm talking full-time work, not part-time work which is being disingenuously being included in 'newly created jobs), there has to be a safety net, particularly for young people.

 

That's what parents are for. This is the must have everything now society, both my parents worked, rented a house, we had no car and no tv, The last Labour government destroyed pensions, jobs through stupidity (unlimited immigration), the economy through stupidity (ridiculous borrowing), unlimited welfare through stupidity. I will probably vote them in next time because I'm voting UKIP unless Mr Slippery is ousted or has to back an in/out referendum. In which case the Conservatives will get in by a landslide.

 

Get out of Europe, get out of ECHR, restrict foreigner's jobs to work permits, then those that have no citizenship have no choice/money but leave. That should free up a few jobs.

 

Either way if parents are working and paying in that should cover dependents. Nobody ever working in maybe three generations living in paid for housing is a scandal that needs sorting now.

Edited 9 October, 2012 by derry

[mack rill]

Pay in - get looked after, pay nothing in - get nothing out.

 

Sounds good to me. dose this mean we can ship out half of Europe?

[derry]

Sounds good to me. dose this mean we can ship out half of Europe?

 

I think they would go of their own accord. We'd have to leave the EU/ECHR.

[bridge too far]

That's what parents are for........

 

So, if there's no work for young people in the area that their parents live in???????

[Thedelldays]

If I had my way.. I would get rid of economic migrants from the eastern block countries.... Who have swarmed over here and taken all the jobs at the lower end of the pay market that could and probably should be taken by the younger generation who have been born here...

 

I would pull out off this ridiculous open door policy with the European union and set up something with members of the commonwealth like Australia, New Zealand and Canada... You know, nations we have long historical ties with, share lots of similar interests and share the same bloody head of State with

 

Just my opinion

[Sour Mash]

Mass immigration and the abuse of and dependence on the welfare state is what has stuffed this country over the last 30 years.

[Gemmel]

If I had my way.. I would get rid of economic migrants from the eastern block countries.... Who have swarmed over here and taken all the jobs at the lower end of the pay market that could and probably should be taken by the younger generation who have been born here...

 

I would pull out off this ridiculous open door policy with the European union and set up something with members of the commonwealth like Australia, New Zealand and Canada... You know, nations we have long historical ties with, share lots of similar interests and share the same bloody head of State with

 

Just my opinion

 

My daughter had to spend a couple of days in hospital last week and from A&E, to the assessment ward, through to being put onto a main ward and then transfered

to another ward, I was amazed at how many Polish / Eastern European patients there were.

 

Just watching the whole dynamics of a working hospital, the costs must be huge. I have always been reasonably ambivalent towards immigration in the past, but found myself questioning how we could possibly afford it as a Country.

[doddisalegend]

If I had my way.. I would get rid of economic migrants from the eastern block countries.... Who have swarmed over here and taken all the jobs at the lower end of the pay market that could and probably should be taken by the younger generation who have been born here...

 

I would pull out off this ridiculous open door policy with the European union and set up something with members of the commonwealth like Australia, New Zealand and Canada... You know, nations we have long historical ties with, share lots of similar interests and share the same bloody head of State with

 

Just my opinion

 

I remember watching a telly programme were they gave workshy brits the chance to do the low paid work imigrants do ....the brits weren't interested they'd rather sponge of the state than do poor paid menial work. Chances are we'd boot out the econmic migrants and then struggle to find brits who wanted to do their jobs.

[solentstars]

Ha ha if only it was that simple but I like the usual Alf garnet style solutions.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

[Thedelldays]

My daughter had to spend a couple of days in hospital last week and from A&E, to the assessment ward, through to being put onto a main ward and then transfered

to another ward, I was amazed at how many Polish / Eastern European patients there were.

 

Just watching the whole dynamics of a working hospital, the costs must be huge. I have always been reasonably ambivalent towards immigration in the past, but found myself questioning how we could possibly afford it as a Country.

 

We obviously can't... But we can't change it... So cuts else where have to be made... And the liberal lefties would go mental calling people Nazis or something

[Whitey Grandad]

I remember watching a telly programme were they gave workshy brits the chance to do the low paid work imigrants do ....the brits weren't interested they'd rather sponge of the state than do poor paid menial work. Chances are we'd boot out the econmic migrants and then struggle to find brits who wanted to do their jobs.

 

If you stopped paying them benefits they'd soon start working.

[Thedelldays]

I remember watching a telly programme were they gave workshy brits the chance to do the low paid work imigrants do ....the brits weren't interested they'd rather sponge of the state than do poor paid menial work. Chances are we'd boot out the econmic migrants and then struggle to find brits who wanted to do their jobs.

 

It's easy when you get free money which supports a certain lifestyle

 

My mate goes away to sea... Been to Afghanistan and missed the birth of his 2nd girl.... He did it as he provides for his family.... And also, so some other chav does not have to work and do anything