To think that a 23k benefits cap will drive some families in the SE

[Minifingers9]

... Into destitution?

I live in a pretty unappealing and comparatively cheap part of greater London but you can't get a 3 bedroom rental for under £1400 a month.
If we lost our jobs we wouldn't be able to live on 23k a year as a family of 5. Not when 15k of it was going on rent.
Why don't they have regional benefit caps?

Dawndonna. But it is true, the system does not work on the basis that we pay in and the money is saved somewhere so we can take it out. That is the point of the mess we are in. You paid for other people in those 30 years and we pay for anyone claiming benefits now. l have never claimed benefits in my life so have paid in the past for others and am paying now for others. My money is not being invested somewhere so I can have it back when I need it - which I will no doubt at some stage. The people then will be paying for me.
The whole wefare state is far too heavy a burden for us to continue at the. rate we are. I am sorry if that makes anyone on benefits flinch but it is the truth.

Wha DH and I pay now is too little to pay for what we will claim when we are old. We have both used the health service - I have had 4 operations and am grateful for everything it has done. When DS was born, it paid for the care I got and he got. That has probably used up more than I have contributed in my working life.

Tough messages but true.

"The General Election showed how fed up people are with the benefits system"

Did it?

Even those the vast majority of benefits are paid to the retired, the sick, and those who are in genuine need?

Well - more fool the voters then. They have voted out of spite for policies which will result in huge hardship and - importantly - WILL DO ALMOST NOTHING TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMY, AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THOSE OF US WHO WORK AND PAY TAX.

I don't see how it is possible to be destitute on 23k. That is more than we've ever taken home, and we are in London and we have always been ok.

There does need to be some control on rents brought in, but even without it, you are not going to be destitute on that amount of money.

True Minifingers. But the people who bothered to vote, voted in a Tory majority knowing what their agenda is. Protect the wealthy and cut public services. They are not interested in the middle pay range working voters- who vote for them because of some naive notion that they are no lnger working class and the Tories will help them with their social aspirations and protect their 'wealth'. It is rubbish. All the Tories are interested in is protecting the status quo- rich at the top, unfettered by any cuts or additional taxes- everyone else can fuck off as far as they are concerned. Hack public services. Allow wealthy businessmen to make a profit from running them- disgraceful!
But of people who bothered to vote, more voted for the Tories than any other party- fact, unfortunately.

I'm on a low wage, and I voted Tory because they are the only party I trust not to fritter away tax payers money on luxuries we can manage without.

I would like someone to come back on here and explain to us all how anyone can possibly be destitute on a salary of £29 000 a year.

Can those of you who do think this utter nonsense not see how breathtakingly offensive your position is to the MAJORITY of working people who can only dream of earning that kind of money.

1. The Tories want to help those in part time work or not working to work full time. These policies will help to achieve that. That is for the good of those people and of course other tax payers. That is a moral good.

1. Most people don't think those on benefits should take out more than many workers hence the longish standing £25k benefits cap due to come down to £23k. Most people are not within even the current cap but 50,.000 families so far have been affected and that's a very good thing. Many have been nudged into work and I am sure they thank the state for that.

1. Cameron has made it clear this is about one united nation and working for the good of everyone. A benefits cap will help to make a much fairer society where work pays and full time work particularly pays.

1. Yes, there are separate issues over funding of the old age pension for those with NI contributions which for many of us kicks in at age 70 but may have to start later as we all live so long, even with auto enrolment.

"Yes, they feel helpless and others including utterly impoverish immigrants feel masters of their fate able to work at whatever it takes to get on. I often find so much more in common with go getting immigrants than oh woe is me British benefits claimants."

Spot on.

The reality is that nothing will change, those people will always find a way round the system, and despite the fact that they really are a minority, the rest of us will suffer for it.

I get this, but what I don't understand is why those who are against a benefits cap aren't angry at those people and instead save their anger for people who do contribute to society and just want their taxes spent wisely.

The fact that it's only a small number of people doesn't wash when were talking about millionaires using legal tax avoidance methods, so why should it be acceptable to continue allowing people to take advantage of benefits just because they're a minority?

I totally agree with the sensible posts from Lulu. Dawn does have issues with anyone who doesn't agree with her, she states her own personal circumstances again and again on posts as though her situation is worse than anyone else. She says she has paid in.

It doesn't work like that, if you pay in you are not necessarily entitled to take out.

Hear, hear for the benefits cap.

' These policies will help to achieve that. That is for the good of those people and of course other tax payers. That is a moral good.'

Job creation helps that, real jobs, not zero hours agency excuses for jobs.

The benefits system should be for the elderly, the sick and disabled. I'm quite happy to support that and ensure people have an appropriate roof over their head. Also think their should be so e sort of temporary stop gap system.

But something radical needs to happen with the long term unemployed, families where none of the adults work, or have ever worked, where people 'choose' not to work etc .....certainly shouldn't be entitled to any sort of long term help or permanent accomodation.

Dawn - your argument appears to be that if you pay in - you can tak eout.

How does that work for those people who have paid in literally hundreds of thousands? Do they get to call it quits at 50 and start taking out equivalent to what they've put in?

No. Didn't think so.

And you know, please stop being aggressive to everyone who disagrees with you and please argue the points raised rather than making every single post about you and your situation. Millions of other people matter too, working people matter . The fact that Labour didn't seem to give a shiny one about the vast majority of ordinary working people is why they lost so dramatically.

Actually Dawn doesn't have issues with those that disagree, she has issues with patronising twats who still, not matter what can't seem to learn to differentiate. I am more than aware that there are people, on this thread alone, in a far, far more difficult position than I am. I'm also aware that those who may disagree frequently see it as someone whining about their own circumstances, whilst others see it as what it is, an example that not everybody ends up on benefits because they're feckless.

If you can find any data that 0 hour contracts has increased substantially expat then I would like to see it, the latest ONS stats with regards to recent employment figures show it was mainly full time work that has increased.

Ed made on own goal trying to highlight 0hour contracts as some widespread recent problem, sure there are some who exploit them, just the same as permanant employers, the last coalition at least got rid of exclusivity.

However all the data out there suggests that those on 0 hour contracts are generally happy and not looking for more hours etc.

she has issues with patronising twats who still, not matter what can't seem to learn to differentiate.

Point made

No one else here has resorted to abuse and name calling bar you and Bishipbrennans arse. Both of you shouting from the same camp.

Dawn- it is not about you. No one has clumped everyone who claims benefits together. You can not listen because you can not stop taking this personally and look at it objectively.

Can I see that data please Justanother

I'm an advocacy worker for a voluntary organisation supporting people who are returning to employment. 0 hour contracts may have their place but I can assure you they are making a lot of people's life a misery.

www.cipd.co.uk/pressoffice/press-releases/cipd-research-zero-hours-contracts-unfairly-demonised-oversimplified-261113.aspx

fullfact.org/article/zero_hour_contracts-38391

"Dawn - your argument appears to be that if you pay in - you can tak eout.

How does that work for those people who have paid in literally hundreds of thousands? Do they get to call it quits at 50 and start taking out equivalent to what they've put in"

As you WELL know Eatup, that is NOT what Dawn was saying at all....or if you DID think that then you need to go back to school because they didn't do a very good job of educating you,

What Dawn WAS saying is what I think too.....I paid in for years and years and years. I would have continued paying in for many more years had life not changed so drastically. I imagine that Dawn is in the same position.

Most 50 year olds would have no reason to stop work at 50 and say "I'll call it quits". Some of us HAVE to claim...whether we want to or not because life is not predictable.

However, having paid in all those years I cant and wont feel guilty for needing to take at this moment in time. I am lucky, I have one child only who won't need this care forever. I can then go back to work and start paying in again. Dawn sounds like she is in a completely different position.

I think we are seeing a recovery which is regionally different. I know a lot of London is a bit more on the up with more jobs which is a massive change from about 5 or 6 years of particularly awful lack of job opportunities even in shops. I doubt depressed areas outside the SE are feeling that recovery yet so it's hard to generalise. Mind you my relatives moved from Scotland to ireland. then from Ireland because of the potato famine in the 1840s or whenever it was to the thriving rich mining areas of the NE where the jobs were and then all over - one went to India for work in the 1920s, another to London (they were both female by the way) , 3 to the US/Canada where they virtually starved in after the 1929 crash and I moved to London for work. People have always had to move where the work is as we are seeing from Libya to Greece at present.

I agree that this destitute nonsense is extremely offensive to a lot of people. If my mortgage or rent had been £1.400 per month I'd be destitute too. that is unable to afford food or fuel. But I knew I could not live in an area where housing was so expensive. I certainly didn't expect taxpayers to subsidise this.

Sorry, had to get DS to bed, there is 2 links of the top of my head. I'm not digging through the ONS figures as that's for expat to back up.

Zero hours aren't right for everyone, but this notion that this is the bogeyman tory conspiracy is nonsense.

There are far wider issues involved with regards to job creation, globalisation and automatization are 2 of the biggest.

Unfortunately VivienneMary empathy has become a zero sum game.

If the team that introduces measures are wearing the wrong colours then it must be wrong.