to think benefits should be capped at minimum wage

[moogster1a]

A little idea that all benefits should be capped at a weeks worth of minimum wage; so 37 and half hours times whatever minimum wage is now ( £6 pounds odd ).
That way no one gets paid more for sitting at home than they would for going out to work.
Out of this, all rent prescriptions etc. should be paid, the same as most people in low paid jobs have to pay for everything.
it might also provide an incentive to go out to work to up your wages if you progress in a company.
Just think it would be a lot fairer.

Molly - it depends really. If you worked shifts etc, you might not need full time childcare. In fact, in all my years of low paid jobs, I think one was a 9-5 job. Care homes, shops, call centres, factories etc, are not 9-5.

I'm just saying that this idea that people on benefits are somehow better off than people who work is not always true. You get childcare tax credits as long as both of you work at least 16 hours (they are changing it now so that one of you needs to work at least 25, and the other 16) so you could get childcare mostly covered with just part time work. Obviously this depends on there being jobs to get, but that isn't the discussion.

In fact, my husband works part time (the only job he can find) and I am disabled, and if I was able to start part time work I think we would still get pretty much the same benefits, maybe a slight reduction in council tax benefit so we would have to start paying some of it, but nothing so that we would lose out on a lot of money overall. We already get childcare tax credits as I am too ill to watch the kids full time, and my DLA would actually mean we would start getting disabled working tax credit if I worked. We certainly wouldn't be on a luxury income, but we would be better off.

One of the founding principles of the welfare state was that of "less eligibility" ie that somebody working should be better off than if they weren't. Obviously there are exceptions, there always is, but in general, I would say that is the case. IME, people who find themselves worse off by working tend to have not claimed what in work benefits they could, which is up to them.

Its just my husband and I both work minimum wage and both in working hours, and we get no benefit help except a small amount towards childcare of 40 a week. We dont get council tax benefit, hb or anything else you arent entitled to any of that if you both work minimum wage with no disabilities, special needs etc

Yes Governments seem happy to pay lots of private sector companies to give people interivew training and help with form filling but they never seem to come up with work schemes.

Peachy for example might want a break from that awful life and times so one such break might be someone else has her children for a bit and she gets 6 hours doing something completely different for a change and even if that were just cleaning the goal posts in the local parks or puttin gin 4 hours of admin a day work for a local small business which has masses of paperwork but no money to pay anyone that would (a) ensure tax payers felt the benefit recipients were working for their benefits (b) provide a break from very difficult lives at home for many p eople (and a break from those whose day at home might be in bed until 1pm then walk to the corner shop etc, then watch day time TV) and (c) get people back into the discipline of working hours and some work experience at the same time.

Workfare has a lot to be said for it.

Xenia, you need to remember the 24hr propaganda that public spending to provideservices is the devil's playground. You are presumably in favour of the abolition of the future jobs fund? Usually derided as make -work schemes by CallmeDae fans. You are advocating that public sector jobs should pay poverty wages. Unlikely that prospective employees would support that.

Peachy, as a carer myself I believe I do actually 'work' for my carers allowance and working 24 hours around the clock changing a teenagers nappies, administering medicine, driving to and from appointments, being physically assaulted, having my mental health tested, taking a whole week to manually fill in a dla form, fighting my disabled dependents corner etc etc IS PAID WELL UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGE.

i AM NOT WHEN OR WHY XENIA THINKS oops carers should be cleaning goalposts

WTF?

We don't even get proper respite in order to have a rest. If we were foster carers we would get proper breaks as part of health and safety guidelines and what not!

I am not SURE that should say.

I was being screaming and shouted at

I think more money should be given to the diasabled and the poor and the nhs and thats one of the reasons I work. Most people I know dont bother as I have said but I would feel guilty because even though you arent really any better off if you both work in the minimum wage the money that they would save by not paying us can be given to people who really eed it in a ideal world. Not many people I know share that way of thinking though, but I always see it as if I take the funds then I am taking it away from the ones who really need it (obviously short term unemployment and redundancies not included)

Xenia, you never cease to amaze me. At which point in my eighteen hour day should I go and do a bit of admin? I have said on a couple of other threads today that I have lost, due to cuts, my only respite, 2 hours a week, I usually use that for a bath ( as opposed to a 3 minute shower, often shared, always disturbed) or to catch up on a little sleep.

Oh, and if someone came in to look after our kids, that would still cost the government money, wages, training etc.
As with Roger, I work bloody hard for my 55 quid a week.
I'm sorry, but for someone who purports to be reasonably intelligent, the levels of fuckwittery coming from your keyboard are really quite astounding.

sorry that should say the diabled, carers and the nhs not the poor!

I think the people who think carers don't work for that allowance need to walk in their shoes for a day. It's a thankless task, but then again Xenia I remember you being all up for women handing their disabled dependents into social services so that relevant foster care placements be sought. Now THAT would cost the taxpayer A LOT more money. In my own circumstance it would mean having to pay a foster carer in excess of 1000 a week (at least, it's most probably more) to take my child if I was rendered not to be coping and worse still in an emergency she would have to go to a specialised facility which would cost 800 + a night, or even a special residential school which would cost about 200k per annum. But instead I have taken responsibility for my child because I love her and want the best for her and in return I have had to make sacrifices myself including giving up a career at a pretty young age (I am degree educated, natch, like like lots of carers) and I do that for 55 pound a week. Do you seriously think i should be cleaning goalposts as well? Because I do wonder how social services think I am coping seeing as my respite has been cut to 6 hours a month.

How would it be economically viable to PAY someone to look after someone elses disabled children so THEY could go and do 'a bit of admin' for no pay?

Even if we ignore the cost of training the people who are being sent in to look after the children and the transitionary period necessary - how would it work?

Take a mother away from her kids to do some filing just so the tax payers feel they are getting their money's worth?

I am a tax payer and I am really not that stupid.

The reason why working families cant afford to live in normal sized houses in ordinary streets while benefits claiments can?

Because rents are too high. Encouraged by the madness of buy to let instead of buy to live.

SOmething hugely encouraged by the Tories. Greed is Good.

"How would it be economically viable to PAY someone to look after someone elses disabled children so THEY could go and do 'a bit of admin' for no pay?"

Carers are allowed to earn up to 100 pound a week anyway and social services are supposed to support carers to carry on working under the care act (or it might be the carer act) but they don't, in my experience. I think i said this earlier in the thread

Most people are not carers. A lot of people on benefits aren't and could do work fare. Those that are it would depend on their situation. they might welcome a few hours of respite doing admin for alocal small business. I can certainly remember looking after 3 children under 5 and finding 2 or 3 hours doing office work a wonderful break. It's the variety which can do people good.

The concept that the state will pay you if you do work is something tax payers would prefer to see put into practice.

folk, how would your finances work out if Beenbeta's proposal of a £10,000 universal benefit was applied?

But that isnt what Xenia is suggesting is it?

I thought this was about workfare again. Getting carers to do voluntary work to 'earn' their benefits?

Not enabling them to do a job that is likely to give them a chance of progression and earning more money.

I cant get carers allowance because I earn £25 too much. I have thought about giving up work when things have been difficult but figured that CA and DLA were on such dodgy ground I would end up in a much worse situation anyway.

If everyone could have a lovely job like mine (which is at risk - thanks a lot mr Cameron) which paid enough to cover IB/ESA but didnt put too much pressure on a family living with one or more disabled member I am sure they would jump at the chance.

But I was lucky, lucky,lucky to get this job.

Two hours a week? Luxury! The country can't afford it.

But if workfare are doing these jobs there will not be any jobs left for people are able to work for a salary.

That is why workfare is crap.

ohDoAdmit very true; it's the economics of the madhouse

Trust me, Julia, that two hours a week was a luxury! But I imagine Xenia thinks I should have been shelf stacking for a change of scenery!

Molly - I know you said you wouldn't claim anyway, but I'm confused as to how you would get no help - that calculation I did up there was with no special needs or disabilities. How many children do you have? Have you done an entitled to calculation?

dawn - you're lucky to have shelves. for heaven's sake, do buck up.

senseofentitlement - My 2 colleagues at work are on same wages as my husband and I and they only get a small amount of help towards childcare to.I have one and one on the way. I have had more childcare help i the past but never had more than childcare help. Its cause between us we do 65 to 70 hours I think so we make too much already I think

Sorry Julia, I know I should be grateful for that 55 quid I've nicked scrounged via Xenia's generosity. I tell you what, let's split a bottle of and be irresponsible with the tax money.