Advanced search

David Cameron welfare reforms-no family will receive more than £25,000 a year.

(749 Posts)
Hammy02 Sat 11-Jun-11 16:12:16

Good idea? I think so. I can't believe a single family receives this much already in benefits. It is about the same as the average income so it would be ridiculous for any one family to have more in benefits than someone that works?

Pumpernickel10 Sat 11-Jun-11 16:14:25

So your saying a family with disabled children who can't work can't get anymore than a working family?
Some people can't work through illness etc

Mamaz0n Sat 11-Jun-11 16:15:18

but what he fails to point out is that the majority of that money is not cash in the hand of teh claimant.
It is also rent, council tax, direct payments for those with disabilities etc etc.

IF you took a larger family living in London, dad gets made redundant and has to claim benefits. That £25k would baely feed them.

Benefits should be given on a case by case basis. it is impossible to fix rigid rules that will cover everyone.

onagar Sat 11-Jun-11 16:17:57

OP, if it's someone with several disabled children will you just put some of them down to save on tax money?

twinklypearls Sat 11-Jun-11 16:20:29

That is more than a new teacher earns.

I am in split minds about this, surely the people who receive in excess of even 20K in benefits is a very small number. Therefore this is Cameron trying to whip up hatred of the poor again.

TidyDancer Sat 11-Jun-11 16:23:33

The problem with trying to put a cap on benefits is that is only caters for the average claimants. And since the 'system' is populated with people who do not fit the normal criteria, it is simply impossible to restrict money so rigidly.

What if a family have eight children and work hard to support them, having them knowing that they have the money to feed and clothe them (etc) and then a couple of the children become disabled and the parents are made redundant or are otherwise unable to work? Is £25k enough to support them? Fuck no. Is it their fault they are in that situation? No.

This is too archaic and discriminatory.

cory Sat 11-Jun-11 16:24:51

yes, I think you've got it, twinkly

swingingcat Sat 11-Jun-11 16:26:57

I read it as families in receipt of welfare payments who continue to have children and have no intention of trying to gain employment.

Too many have chosen the welfare state as a way of life.

TidyDancer Sat 11-Jun-11 16:31:08

That's true swinging, there are those that have no intention of supporting themselves, but I don't for a minute believe that that's the majority of claimants at all. But this cap on money does assume that that's how it is. It's going to royally screw up many lives.

twinklypearls Sat 11-Jun-11 16:32:20

I think it is such an emotive issue and hard to talk about with getting into personal circumstances, envy and feelings.

I would love to live in London, we have tried - it is where most of my family live. We cannot afford to do so, therefore we live somewhere else. I would love with all my heart to have a large family, we cannot afford one so we have one daughter. I am now at a time in my life when we could afford more but it is too late.

I have been on benefits myself and know it is no easy ride. But I think it is understandably hard to know that people on benefits can have things that many other working familes cannot have.

I also know that if I wanted to I could be one of the familes on benefits with lots of kids in a council flat in London I could be. I choose not to, so I am aware that I am spouting nonsense, but those feelings of resentment are there.

What makes me angry is that the Tory government is encouraging us to all revel in those dark unpleasant thoughts that we have about people, often the most vulnerable people in society. This is not good goverment, certainly not from a government who wanted to invest in our happiness.

FingandJeffing Sat 11-Jun-11 16:34:17

I don't have a problem with families getting more than this where there is a need. I expect there are hardly any that do. Though actually it is prob more than a teacher earns since tax wouldn't be payable. It just a cheap headline grabber.

Shoesytwoesy Sat 11-Jun-11 16:34:38

oh here we go again again, dave the scam making people who work see people who can't as being scroungers. I do hope he has jobs for these people, or perhaps he wants them to live in poverty

twinklypearls Sat 11-Jun-11 16:34:47

I think we also need to look at how much it costs to live in this country. If we need to give out in benefits the average wage - just so that people can live - something has got very out of hand.

My dp and I are both well educated and in professional jobs, in my case in a management role. We are not splash the cash types at all but we find life to be expensive, it is a struggle.

twinklypearls Sat 11-Jun-11 16:36:59

I agree FingandJeffing, you can see the Daily Mail headline " Feckless poor earn more than teacher". Quite ironic as the Daily Mail hates teachers but just not as much as benefits claimants.

OpinionatedPlusSprogs Sat 11-Jun-11 16:37:39

What twinklypearls and mamazon said.

somethingwitty82 Sat 11-Jun-11 16:39:02

Good, 'The Government' has no money it takes it from hard working people using the threat of violence.

Why should I be taxed to give money to people who have more money than me?Who could never earn the amount they receive

ApocalypseCheeseToastie Sat 11-Jun-11 16:39:40

I'm assuming children/adults on DLA won't be affected (DLA won't be taken into account ) If so the man is a bigger twat than I thought him capable of being.

scarlettsmummy2 Sat 11-Jun-11 16:40:57

I agree with swinging cat. I am skint again this month after working hard, my husband works hard, and then I am told about the feckless and lazy being handed benefits worth 25k. I think it is a complete joke. I have no issue with those who have genuinely fallen on hard times, especially in the current economic climate, but to choose the state to support you as a lifestyle choice is just wrong. Obviously there are some people who are genuinely unable to work for health reasons or with a disable dependant, who should receive benefits but the system needs to be tightened up. The government should create menial jobs like picking up litter that the long term, choosing to be unemployed can do in return for their benefits. If they aren't prepared to do that- then tough. I did plenty of shitty jobs when I was younger, including washing dishes for 12 hours a day, but I did them to get money. Never once did I expect the state to support me.

twinklypearls Sat 11-Jun-11 16:41:38

I don't know how much you earn. I would suspect the number of people receiving more than you earn is a very small number, probably in great need.

QueenOfFeckingEverything Sat 11-Jun-11 16:48:16

"The government should create menial jobs like picking up litter that the long term, choosing to be unemployed can do in return for their benefits."

Oh right.

Well then they wouldn't be unemployed, would they? They'd be doing a job wouldn't they, and therefore should be paid a proper wage for it.

Anything else would be exploitative slave labour.

peppapighastakenovermylife Sat 11-Jun-11 16:50:08

It's worth more than a 25k salary though isn't it - I would imagine it is similar to around 32k pre tax etc?

I wonder how many families will be forced to 'separate' and have two households? E.g. if mum and dad together with 4 kids can get 25k will mum and dad apart get 50k? I know you then need two lots of rent etc but wonder how many people may feel forced into this

twinklypearls Sat 11-Jun-11 16:51:51

I totally get that frustration. Although the 32K is the household income and not wage of one person.

Riveninside Sat 11-Jun-11 16:52:25

Dave attacking the poor again. I rea yesterday that of families on benefits, only about 4% are a larger family than 4 members. Many are single mums in their 30's whose husband has fecked off.
And the vast amount of benefits is the housing portion. Maybe landlords should be charging £1000 per month for some poky hole.

Oh, and by far the largest portion of the welfare bill is pensioners...

Riveninside Sat 11-Jun-11 16:52:50

Shouldnt. Not should

twinklypearls Sat 11-Jun-11 16:53:18

Can't attack pensioners though Riven, they vote.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: