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.

lyingwitch i think you would be shocked to realise just how often everyone is lumped together by people like the Op

Becuase we all are getting a free ride apparentley .Never mind the bloody horse i still not got my goat yet

My fundamental point is that the money available to those on JSA or IS should be CAPPED. Some posters have misunderstood and said " ooh, that means I would get more than my £60 'odd pound. Please note the word "capped".
a lot of additional benefits are avaialble to you once you are on JSA or IS. various housing benefits, free dental, free eyetests, free school dinners etc. What I am saying is that these additional benefits plus JSA should not add up to more than the NMW.
Disability benefit is a different matter and has laways been and hopefully will continue to be treatly seperately.

I agree with Lying here - there discussion is being confused with reference to DLA and other such benefits - noen of us here are saying that people with geniune disabilities are not deserving. I do not think we can deny that we have a 'benefits culture' here in England though.

Human - I am sure it is not given on a whim but you must see that some still do abuse the system. I don't see why you are taking this as a personal attack on you, we are talking here about those that are not deserving taking out of the pot that should be used for those that are.

Yeah, that'd be awesome- it's more than triple what people currently get as a single parent on income support (who is looking for work but getting turned down by employers despite having a good MSc and nearly a PhD too), I'd be able to buy loads of christmas presents for the kids. Or wait, do you think it's less and you're just completely delusional? In that case, you can probably get some kind of job as an advisor to DC.

A person working on mw would earn 228.00 before tax and ni, deduct that and you are looking at about 186.00...

Add to that housing benefit, council tax benefit, wtc, ctc, free prescriptions, eye tests and a large contribution to childcare.

A benefits package for someone with a child on minimum wage is always going to make you better off, dependent on the living costs of where you are.

It is an easy solution to say people should move, however, to where? To what? Unemployment is at a high, here in the north east I have seen advertised jobs fall from 1400 a week to 246 a month ago,

The theory may be well meant, but it is hardly well thought out, someone on minimum wage may be working unsociable hours, which means that they often rely on family support in order to work, so relocating is not an option.

The reason that I get tired of topics like this is because it always stems from the most simplistic of views... Let's sterilise drug addicts, let's cut benefits, let's force people (normally women from the lowest income brackets) into voluntary jobs, let's hang the paedos.

If it were as easy as that it would have worked the previous times that these initiatives and processes have been set in place.

Time for a fresh rethink.

carers is classed as a benefit to .if you earn more than £100 a week you can not claim and lets not forget thats not even near minimum wage

infact under the new universal benfit i will ahve to decide am I a carer or am I dsiabled i can not be paid for both .Yet i will still be doing the careing

I've got two horses on benefits :) although have a sharer for each so my contribution is minimal. Obviously I had them before my circumstances worsened but I might see if I can apply for a crisis grant or social fund loan or something for a new one - or does anyone here know if I can use my direct payments to pay for more horses?

Are direct payments included in this benefits cap by the way OP?

Sorry to break from the bunfight a mo, but DooinMeCleanin you might qualify for Support For Mortgage Interest. It's only for interest but every little helps, eh.

Sorry about your husband's job. Bad luck.

Human where am I lumping people together as scroungers? TBH I understand why you would not go to work if the value of all your benefits adds up to an awful lot more than taking a low paid, or in some cases a reasonably well paid job. I'm saying the fact that a lifestyle of that sort is achievable on benefits is wrong when lots of people go out to work and get far less disposable income

moogster1a i thought your OP was clear but thank you for restating it...helps to keep the debate to the point.

(1) you are not talking about disabilities
(2) you are talking about a maximum, so not proposing a raise in benefits

overcooked

Why is it not personal becuase I am going to be affected by it .So that makes it personal .

Or is it easier for people to think that we are a faceless group .Or when people say their viewpoint does it make it to real .

There are no jobs for people to go into though - how will you fix that?

If you're on NMW you generally get all those things anyway. Benefits are capped.

We get CTC, WTC and free prescriptions, dental etc. because we are on a higher level of WTC. We also get a reduction in council tax and access to free courses, easy entry TV liscence schemes etc. We don't get any housing benefit but wouldn't even if we were out of work until we'd been unemployed for more than 6 months, by which time we'd have lost our home anyway.

We don't get free school dinners, but the school have a hardship fund we could apply to as we recieve full CTC and WTC, so we could get them via the hardship fund if we needed them.

Benefits are fine as they are, although I think housing help for those with mortgages should be made available sooner, just to pay the interest on the morgage and keep the house of course, not to make payments off the total cost off the mortgage.

The NMW needs to be higher. It's a joke as it is now.

TBH I understand why you would not go to work if the value of all your benefits adds up to an awful lot more than taking a low paid, or in some cases a reasonably well paid job. I'm saying the fact that a lifestyle of that sort is achievable on benefits is wrong when lots of people go out to work and get far less disposable income

no teh reason i do not go to work is my disability make me unemployable and im a carer npt becuase i have less disposable income .

I give up really do .

Op, I completely agree. If disability benefits are left completely out of the debate, you are 100% right.

The way it works at the moment is that that working poor and the endlessly squeezed middle end up much worse off in real terms. Even just having to pay for school meals makes a huge difference to people's budget, and it is abhorrent that someone who works has to pay for them and then ends up with literally nothing at the end of the month, while someone on benefits gets them for free and has something spare to spend or save at the end of the month.

It is so wrong that it works out this way, and it's the reason why so many people have a problem with benefits claimants. If we could trust the system to only provide the amount needed to live on in circumstances where you really cannot provide for yourself, nobody would have reason to begrudge anyone state help.

there are over 400,000 jobs vacant at the moment. can we fill those please?

also why were most of the jobs created in the last decade filled by migrants?

Oh thank you, acumenin, I'll save that link. We have no idea how long he has a job for atm. We're working to try and pay off debts atm and moving things to interest free where we can while he is still in work.

He works in the NHS as a temp worker and we've been told (via local News channels ) that all NHS temp workers in our area will be gone by 2012 and they'll be making staff cuts also. His co-workers are trying to get him a FT contract, but it's not looking good.

human can you try to concentrate on the fact that I'm not talking about people on disability allowance

infact under the new universal benfit i will ahve to decide am I a carer or am I dsiabled i can not be paid for both

Sorry, but that is a good thing.

Presumably you will still recieve DLA regardless of what descision you make, as DLA is paid to people in work, but I don't see why you should be paid by the state as a carer, at the same time as being paid because you are unable to work.

You can't be unable to work and still be a full time carer for someone. Surely if you can care for another, you could get work? If someone was prepared to employ you, which is a different matter entirely.

I have worked full time from I was 16, when I had my DD I had to apply for benefits for a short time, I then moved into a minimum wage job for a short period of time until something in my field became available. I did this because no kind of lifestyle was achievable on benefits, however, I ended up with almost 250.00 per week more money just in supportive benefits when working full time. So the idea that people on benefits are living the life of Riley is short sighted.

It's the lifestyle differences, the more money you earn the more you spend, you become accustomed to a level of living, you extend yourself more, you buy a house, a car, you extend your credit and live above your income. That's why people see people on benefits as having more disposable income, for they rarely get the opportunity to have these things in their lives.

slavetofilofax ''Having children is a privelidge, not a right, and if you want the privelidge of having three children then you shuld pay for it.''

So what happens when you've a nice set-up, working, good income, 3 or more children - then something unexpected happens, say redundancy, separation, long term illness, death, whatever - which then forces the need to claim benefits?

redundancy, separation, long term illness, death, whatever

these things are not unlikely - dont 50% of marriages end in divorce?

redundancy, long term illness, death are reasons why if you want children you need to be properly insuranced

insuranced = insured

slave I really don't think you understand the way in which caring works. It's not just about physical disabilities. It's encouraging people to eat, being with them, explaining things to them, and for them. Helping to stop panic, telling them when it's time for medication all sorts of things, so it is quite possible to be both disabled and carer. I've said before that carer's save the government millions per year, yet they only get paid £55.00pw. If the carer/family is on benefits, most of that £55.00 is counted as money 'you already have coming in' and is then removed, so caring for someone, full time, often for a great deal more than the 39 hours per week stipulated, pays around 15 quid a week.