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.

' work for benefits'???

No, no , no!! If there is' work' to be given, then give it as a proper job!! There are not enough jobs as it is!!

ah so we have the worthy disabled and the not so worth disabled now to sheesh .

I am a lone parent and work full time. I also keep a horse. In the stable next to mine there is a horse that belongs to a woman on long term disability. she gets up every morning to muck out and ride her horse but she is too sick to work (depression I think). It does irk me somewhat that my taxes are paying towards keeping her horse. We have had quite a few people in the yard who keep horses and for one reason or another dont work and are on benefits. I cant get my head round it at all

but maybe the horse is what keeps her going maybe with out that horse she would not get out of bed or leave the house

No human-we have people who lie or greatly exaggerate the extent of their disability to claim benefits.

As I said I know this to be true because I see it-every single day. I have quite a few of them in my own family so why would I make it up?

Someone with a genuine disability would have my utmost sympathy and of course they should be helped as much as possible.

Absolutely Slave - it is the few that give others a bad name. I know of someone on longterm benefits becuase she is depressed - but she's not, she just doesn't want to work. This is higely different to someone in Human's position that should be supported by the system.

On the other hand, those who are deemed unable to work due to disability should receive the same support for getting into work as people that are deemed able to work if that's what they want to do. My brother has felt written off by society previously as he had basically been told that he could do not valuable job and I do not think that this is right.

Can you get benefits for being depressed? which benefit is that? I have been depressed to the point of suicide before and noone told me I could claim benefits?

I find this hard too be true.

pink

bit that is not what the op stated all Benefits should be capped

In some parts of the country entire communities are registered disabled or long term sick.

It is perfectly understandable. The mines closed for example and people panicked. There was no work other than short trm contracts or seasonal work and people wanted the security of DLA or whatever. The doctors understood and were complicit.

Many members of my family went from working down the pit to a life time on DLA. They are not really unable to work but the alternative is too frighteneing. A universal benefit would be much better. They would then be able to take work as and when it comes up, whist having the security of knowing you'll never starve.

I think prescriptions should be free for everybody if they're free at all. They are in Wales.

I don't know how much that 'universal benefit' would cost but I can't see that it's workable somehow?

I think the OP has a point. There are some people who are physically able to work doing cash-in-hand on the site and very nicely on benefit (and they shouldn't be). Those are the ones who should be hit hard financially. I know they're a relatively small segment but they're significant - and bringing the whole system in disrepute.

I actually think it's that small prideless segment, having endless children and circumventing the system at every turn, who are referred to. We shouldn't be having generation after generation of workshy benefit cheats. Who the heck would want them in their society?

There's no need to keep bringing the disabled population into discussions like this because I don't see that it's about them at all. Allowances are made now - and so they could be under any system. Why do some keep making it all about them when it clearly isn't?

erm DLA is not a benefit just for people not working it is also for people that work to and erm sorry i would be first to laugh at someone saying it is liveable on DLA .

Do you know how hard it is to claim ?

It is to help with the addtional cost of being disabled

lying witch read the OP

to think benefits should be capped at minimum wage.Which in that case brings me nicely into it

she did not say bar the disabled or bar the carers or bar the deserving poor

Do doctors really sign people off on long term sick just because of hig employment in an area?

If they do, they should be struck off, and anyone claiming that they are long term sick just because they find it 'too frightening' to claim the same unemployment benefits as everyone else is completely immorral. It is people like that that make others quesion anyone on disability benefits. It's disgusting.

I dont have any problem with people on benefits being given enough money to keep their families - but keeping horses?? Surely the state shouldnt be funding these?

man - but surely it should be hard to claim so that the money goes to those that need it and not those that are abusing the system. It must incredibly frustrating for someone to have to go through the process when they have a 'visable' disability. But not all diabilities are visable and there needs to be safeguards in place.

I am not for one second suggesting that DLA is easy to live on or that it works but it is much more difficult to manage that those that can work.

TheHumancatapultbut the OP did not say including either. if the OP did include benefits, I would diagree with her,

Slave yes

Maybe she gets a decent child support payment to afford her horses? Who knows...

Just as an aside (although I know the thread has moved on) - whilst specific disabilities do not entitle you to free prescriptions, you can get a medical exemption www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/1126.aspx card]] if you have
"A continuing physical disability which means the person cannot go out without the help of another person. Temporary disabilities do not count even if they last for several months" For example, if oyu need someone to help you get up in the morning.

humancatapault... I did - it's not the OP who's bringing the disabled into it, it's the posters afterwards. The same old thing - it just adds a dimension that isn't relevant, in my opinion, and just derailing the point. Of course the disabled should be supported with what is needed. Does anyone really think they shouldn't?

there is a massive difference between 15 minutes of mucking out followed by a pleasurable ride and holding down a job that can support you - bit shocked that anyone might suggest otherwise. You might as well say if people can feed and walk a dog they are capable of working full time. If you've been in and out of mental hospitals several times in the past few years you might be surprised at how few employers are all that willing to snap you up.

On ESA you can work (up to 16 hours) and keep your benefit money for the first year then either increase hours (and get disabled tax credits) or stop work for a year. I think it's quite a good system in that respect.

overcooked it is hard .So is not something that is given on a whim and it is not just for those that can not work .

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 is what i am disagreeing with

I think it's a jolly good idea, personally. DH is about to be laid off from his NMW job. We'd be far better off if our benefits matched his wage. As it is we'll only get around £130 per week, plus CTC, which we get now anyway. We're not entitled to HB as we have a mortgage.

wordfactory - I too am a big fan of Universal Benefit combined with removing minimum wage because it is the least distortive way of providing a social safety net that does not distort the economy at all. It would be even better then giving everyone a £10k tax free income tax threshold and imposing a higher NMW. The Universal Benefit can be viewed notionally as the people receiving their rightful share of the natural wealth of the country raised from sale of mineral rights, logging rights, oil/gas exploration and rents from Govt land.

It works politically because everyone gets it regardless of circumstances. The tax payer cannot complain about 'benefits spongers' because they get the Universal Benefit too and people who have no job would have the freedom to work without fear of losing their Universal Benefit. Employers would face a simple choice too of paying a wage that provides people with an incentive to work at whatever level is required in the particular location the business is situated and without the constraint of a NMW.

Sadly, the current Govt has gone in the opposite direction by proposing the removal of Child Benefit from some people. Child Benefit was popular and widely supported precisely because it was a Universal Benefit paid to everyone.