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.

Folkgirl....don't be stupid... You or your DH would be expected to be seeking work and actively so too!! You really think you could live like that??

What happens when your car breaks down? Have a high gas/elec bill? You can't get credit you know?

hardboiledpossum i think the state should support everyone for 2 children.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15808922

At least some of those in the Church of England are standing up against this

Couldn't agree more MoreBeta.

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. Absolutely, jade80. Why wouldn't you?!

Sara- but others say there is no work, so presumably he could look ad infinitum.

What happens when his car breaks down now? Or a high bill? Oh yes, they find it out of their wage WHICH IS LESS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE ON BENEFITS.

so op where are the jobs???
and people say oh it wouldn't affect the disabled, yeah......ok seeing as this government is using the cuts to target disabled people more than any other group, that is just rubbish.

TheRealTillyMinto but it isn't the parents who will suffer it's the children. And yes some people will abuse the system but I think that is the price we have to pay to stop children living in poverty.

What happens when the feckless go ahead and have more children anyway? Do we remove the children or just let them live in dire poverty?

What happens if a middle class family of five falls on hard times? Do we remove their extra child until they find work again?

there are over 400,000 vacancies.

Which of course would mean slave that someone else would have to be employed to do the caring that the disabled person was doing ergo costing the government more.

Jade... On benefits it's weekly, no 'salary' to take a lump sum from.

It's hand to mouth living

And there are 2.62 million unemployed. Where are these 400,00 vacancies?

I dare say that at least 1 third of them if not more are in London/central. What about those up North?

Sara I'm not stupid!!!

I wouldn't want credit. That's what saving is for! And what would happen? The same that happens now. The amount of money coming into the house would be the same!!!!

I'm not suggesting that we will do it, I'm pointing out the financial comparison.

Besides, some people clearly would rather blag a 10 minute interview once a fortnight than work a 40 hour week, plus commuting with all the stress that comes with it!

I think the point about the whole capped at 2 children thing is that the PEOPLE this affects most are the children themselves. It is all well and good calling PEOPLE a lifestyle choice/privilege but it is a mistake to think that those PEOPLE don't have rights themselves. So penalise all you like, but once they are in the world children have and should have RIGHTS. So no it should not be capped at 2 children... Says someone who chose to have 2 children... I just think that children are very often treated as mindless chattel, as having no more value than pets (another lifestyle choice) and that is wrong wrong wrong, and is a symptom of a very messed up society. You have to count the cost for everybody and that includes those who cannot make their voice heard. Sure the children are for the time being at least, the parents' responsibility but they have needs of their own and should not be made to go without because they are the third child etc. What are we saying? Some children have more value than others? Some PEOPLE have more value than others... Only people who contribute have value?! Slippery slope that one...

Yeah, plenty of people get paid weekly. I fail to see your point. It's still income that needs budgeting.

With no back up in form of overdraft/credit card/bank loan etc

Good god Sara, you seem to be missing the point that plenty work their arses off for 'hand to mouth living' only to see others with the same or better standard of living and all day to do as they please!

Folkgirl.... Savings? On benefits? Really

Jade...you've read too much DM crap...and believed it

just been on directgov and there are loads of jobs near me in the south. why arent they filled?

just checked for nr Liverpool & there are loads there. again why arent they filled?

8On benefits it's weekly, no 'salary' to take a lump sum from* no but that's where budgeting comes in. The money has to cover the same costs whether it comes weekly or monthly.

you can't save on benefits, it is impossible, all you can get is debt, with no future to look forward too.

I can guarantee you, sara, tht I have never bought a copy in my life. The poster above, folkgirl, is a case in point.

What annoys me is that those who have never worked can get income based JSA. This means they get other benefits on top of the £67.50 such as the free prescriptions etc. Those of us that have worked and have found themselves made redundant can only get contribution based JSA. This is the £67.50 a week and nothing else.

After being made redundant I had to sign on. I was told that I was getting less because I had actually worked, paid tax and NI by the Jobcentre. How is that right? Surely if you have bothered to try and support yourself you should get more than someone who sees claiming benefits as a career.