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.

Autonomy over your fertility is the most basic of human rights, as is the right to exist. So no, it's not a privilege to have children, and no-one has the right to make morally dubious proclamations to that affect.

MustControl, if you have a good income when you are working then you have the opportunity to save up for in case the worst happens.

You will still recieve benefits, but only the same amount as a family with two children would recieve. You took the chance of being left short when you had three children.

MustControlFistofDeath... 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?

That could happen to anyone at anytime... it must be a harrowing thing to see your familiar lifestyle on shaky, unsure footing. The benefits system is there to see that we don't go under when that happens.

I don't see though that, having had these terrible circumstances happen, anybody would choose to add the extra pressure of an additional child. I don't believe the benefits system was set up for that. It's a 'back-stop', a 'safety net'. To use it as anything else is an abuse, in my opinion.

ive been saying this for years

benefits are there to stop people starving or being homeless, nothing else

why should i pay for someone on benefits to have sky telly, smoke, drink, gamble, go on holidays. If they want those things, get a job.

Insured for redundancy?

Do you mean PPI? It's very expensive for someone on a low wage. Plus it does not help with food and clothing costs. There is fine print that makes it almost impossible for anyone to claim it. We cancelled ours after finding out we wouldn't get anything from it as DH's job was a temporary contract (all he could find after the company he worked for went bankrupt). They don't pay out if you lose temp work. It was pointless us paying for it. we use the extra money to lower the debt instead.

I wish life was as simple as people think it when you're on a low wage/benefits.

How do you insure for divorce? If one parent stays at home with the children they'll be left unemployed and in need of benefits if they split from the working partner.

wow I wish this would happen then JSA would be increased.

oh an by the way where are all these invisible jobs????

moogster1a I completely get what you are saying!

DH is the sole earner in our house at the moment. He earns just under £35k. We don't get anything else except for Child Benefit. From his gross salary he pays - income tax, national insurance, his travelcard (bought through work only used to get to and from work), student loan repayments and his LGPS pension contribution.

He is entering his 3rd redundancy process in 5 years and so, as it is a real possibility, we have looked at our benefit entitlements. Not looked at tax credits, just income support/jsa, HB, CTB.

We would be £100 pcm better off on benefits than on his net salary and he wouldn't have to work a 40 hour week for the pleasure!

We could walk around the park, we could go to museums, we could go swimming (free), we could still run the car, we just wouldn't use it as much, our children would get free school meals so that would reduce our weekly food bill (benefit to us would be about £20 a week), we'd get free prescriptions etc, we'd also benefit from other things that are available to parents of children on free school meals (which seems to be the benchmark for financial need).

So for us, benefits alone would be the equivalent to a £35k annual gross salary. I've just had a look for the email DH sent in which he detailed it all, but I can't find it.

Tbh, it's looking pretty appealing to us. We've done 8 years at university between us, plus lots of additional professional training, made lots of sacrifices, worked really hard, and yet, we'd be just as well off now on benefits. DH has got to submit his request for VR by the new year. I don't think he'll really do it, but he is so low at the moment with the whole thing that a life on benefits is looking tempting.

So yes, something needs to be done!

So Ditzy, if you are made redundant, you are not entitled to any quality of life?

Ffs, not everyone smokes, drinks etc.

DooinMeCleanin income protection, you cannot say because it did not work for you it does work for anyone

divoice - dont have lots of children if you are on a low wage. like anything, dont have what you cannot afford.

''Autonomy over your fertility is the most basic of human rights, as is the right to exist. So no, it's not a privilege to have children, and no-one has the right to make morally dubious proclamations to that affect.''

I couldn't agree less. I think the divide between those who would love another child but accept they can't afford it and those who can just keep popping more out without working to support them is an unfortunate side effect of our benefit system.

It is different if job losses etc.lead to reliance on the benefit system as a safety net. It is those who feel it is someone else's job to provide for their kids that irk me.

Why should people keep having children they can never hope to support themselves?! It's not fair on the children or on the rest of society. I just don't get why a right to reproduce trumps all else. What bollocks.

Dawndonna, I do understand that, but a person who has the energy and the capability to do everything you describe, could do a paid job. Being a carer, even if it doesn't invove a huge amount of physical work, is very draining, and I'm sure much harder than having a telesales job, or an office job.

Yes, a disabled person can have a caring role, but then they can have jobs too. They would still get DLA to help payt for the costs of being disabled, but they wouldn't get income support or whatever else, because the caring role is their means of income.

''Autonomy over your fertility is the most basic of human rights, as is the right to exist. So no, it's not a privilege to have children, and no-one has the right to make morally dubious proclamations to that affect.''

---

Absolutely - have as many as you like - but pay for them and support them YOURSELF.

ditzymitzy2 absolutely. It should be there to meet and cover basic human needs, not to provide a lifestyle choice.

FolkGirl... I really hope your circumstances improve soon. It must be terribly frustrating and soul-destroying to work so hard yet feel you aren't getting anywhere. :(

ITA lying witch.

Folkgirl, best wishes for sorting your situation out. How depressing to be so well qualified yet to work a 40 hour week and come out with less than if you sat on your backsides as a career choice. :(

The thing is, I don't think it's appropriate to batter the welfare system for doing what it is supposed to do - support people to whom shit has happened to give them chance to get back on their feet without finding themselves homeless, naked and starving to death.

It should not be available to people who 'work the system' and who are happy to live on the 'pittance' that is benefits so long as they can do what they want with their time.

If you are unemployed you might be cash poor but you are time rich.

If you are on low wage/the squeezed middle you are still cash poor but also time poor.

If you are wealthier you are cash rich but can still be time poor.

The richest are cash rich and time rich.

I think I can see which group is the least appealing.

Thanks jade80. Fingers crossed it will all come out well in the end, but you're right, it is depressing and the pressure it's having on the family is immense.

The cracks are beginning to show.

"Autonomy over your fertility is the most basic of human rights"

Yep. But you pay for them yourself. More than 2 on benefits is just selfish greed, and drawing funds from causes that genuinely need it.

As they wont cap benefits based on number of children (its a political hot potato even though they know it needs to happen), then they will do it on the sly with overall benefits caps etc.

sevenfold CAPPED!!! This would have no impact on being able to get a job. I'm not saying it would. I'm saying that money / benefits you can get on JSA / IS should not be more than working a full week on NMW.

It sounds like the welfare system is providing much over and above making sure people aren't homeless, naked and starving folkgirl. What you describe as your possible life if your husband packed in his job is very far above the breadline, isn't it?

I agree about being time poor and cash poor being the most unfortunate situation of those you list.

Basically it comes down to if you can have the same standard of living or better by NOT working, then a fair chunk of people WILL choose that route. That seems to be how it is now.

TheRealTillyMinto, Are you serious? Don't have children if you are on a low wage? So nursery nurses, health care assistants, shop workers, newly qualified nurses and all the others on low pay just shouldn't have children?

Most people on min wage will also be entitled to housing benefit and tax credits. In fact we were entitled to over £100 a week in HB when my partner was on 23k, which is a lot more than min wage.

ditzy/FolkGirl - the point you are making is central to the debate that our society needs to have.

When it began, our welfare state was well supported by the vast majority of people. Almost everyone agreed that it really was a necessary lifeline because it provided basic healthcare, just enough money to live on in case someone lost tehir job and a basic state pension. However, as the years went by, Labour Govts increasingly saw it as a mechanism to facilitate wealth redistribution and more cynically a way of creating a set of 'client' voters.

As we stand today we have a Benefits system not a Welfare system and how we limit the scope and cost of that is a question that is legitimate to debate.

on average, you have to earn more than £26k pa to be a net contributor i.e. pay more tax than you get in return via NHS, roads etc.

this means that everyone who earns over £26Kpa supports everyone who earns under 26k.

That's not what she'd saying hardboiled. She's saying if you don't have much cash perhaps you get to one, two or three and think, 'bugger, I'd love another, but just can't afford to do that to a good standard of living for us all'.