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?

The CIPD finds that where zero-hours contracts are being used for the right reasons and people on these types of arrangements are managed in the right way, they are providing flexibility that works for both organisations and individuals

The CIPD finds that where zero-hours contracts are being used for the right reasons and people on these types of arrangements are managed in the right way, they are providing flexibility that works for both organisations and individuals^

Can we reiterate one point...

the right reasons

Justanotherlurker Sat 30-May-15 18:51:59
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.

The ONS also classes workfare as being employed.

HelenaDove

I'm not suggesting they don't, every governement manipulates the figures, if your trying to imply differently then you are being niave.

The ONS stats still show an uptick in paid full time employment so I'm not sure what your point is.

They class workfare as employment so workfare placements will be part of that uptick you mention.

SillyStuffBiting

Cherry picking quotes is not really validating a point is it.

The overall assumption findings is that the demonisation is warranted, take of those partisan glasses and look objectively.

Damn phone,

Ok, do you have any stats as all I can find is OP-ed and blog articles that don't cite any hard figures.

As I said, all governments massage the figures, I don't see the Torys any worse than labour with regards to this.

They don't class workfare as a job when they talk about all the jobs that have been created.

Sorry SillyStuffBiting my previous post was a mangled mess.

Cherry picking 3 words out of one paragraph whilst ignoring the overall picture and data is just being partisan.

If you can refute the data please do.

If you can point me to the data that is relevant today, most blog articles are pointing to this page but using the 2012/13 data.

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/may-2015/statistical-bulletin.html#tab-8--Unemployment

If you care to highlight where workfare has risen over the last few years which has fudged the recent employment figures I would be genuinely interested, as I'm struggling to find some numbers.

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/business-transparency/freedom-of-information/what-can-i-request/previous-foi-requests/labour-market/work-programme/index.html

Statistics relating to government-supported training and employment programmes as published by the Office for National Statistics are sourced from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).

The LFS identifies people participating in government-supported training and employment programmes, such as the Work Programme, via a series of questions relating to their activities in the week prior to interview. Those who report that they were engaged in any form of work, work experience or work-related training are classified as in employment.

I am a single parent and higher rate taxpayer. I am very lucky. When my ex left a few years back I was a scared unemployed single mum with 2 young DC, but I now work full time, in a demanding job, and I make very good money from it. Each year I pay 50% of my income in taxes and I don't begrudge the tax I pay at all. (and I didn't vote this government in).

BUT public finances are finite, so choices do have to be made. Do you fund health, education, social care for the elderly or benefits? Should we give more money to those in the SE or do we need to improve living standards up north? (I live in the north, where I live half the schools are less than satisfactory, and health outcomes are poor). If someone gets more, other services will have less, (I am working on cancer drugs for which there will be no NHS funding as there just isn't the money). In that context a cap is reasonable. Yes it will disadvantage some, but not capping benefits disadvantages a whole host of hidden others.

BUT there are two issues that contribute to the problem that successive governments have not tackled. We aren't building nearly enough social housing, so rents are far too high, and the minimum wage is far too low. If the government is serious about social justice,(and I'm yet to be convinced they are) they must tackle the housing shortage head on. They must also stop propping up the profits of big corporations such as Tesco, or Amazon through tax credits and force them to pay their staff a living wage.

If they do this there will be more money in the system to support those in greatest need.

That's not giving any numbers Helena!

Highlighting the parameters isn't justifying your point, where are the numbers that an increase in workfare are disputing the recent emplyment figures.

To bring it to the table you must have some numbers that contradict the recent ONS report with regards to full time paid employment

Ah sorry, to quick on the reply, will read that link, didn't see it initially.

Eatup here is you example, 29k gross take home £500 a week. Family of five in a London all figures weekly, rent £300, food £80, gas 30, electricity £30, water £10 , clothes £20, phone £10, transport £20, council tax £20 . That already in the red without taking other things into account, things breaking, school trips, childrens birthdays, internet for job searches etc .

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.

What if the rent was only £600 when you first moved to that area, but shot up to £1,400 because of gentrification. Why should poorer people have to feck off and leave just because a bunch of rich twats have decided that it's a 'vibrant bohemian borough'?*

What if the poorer people do leave and settle in a new area but a few years down the line this area too becomes a 'vibrant bohemian borough' and as a result house prices and rent sky rocket. Should they be required to move again?

*full credit to MrsDeVere here

This cap applied to me a while back.( 6 dc in South East) Before the benefit cap for a few months we got around £660 a week. Going down to.500 a week was hard as it included all rent bills etc. The outgoings and costs of 2 children can in no way be compared to six, it was a struggle. Thankfully we are now out of this situation just thought I'd give you the perspective of someone who has been capped. My rent is really low for a 4 bed in my area, if I had been paying 1200 which seems to be market rent for a 4 bed it would have been impossible.

I thought zero hrs contracts were 2% of employment contracts. Some people like them so let's take 1% - not a huge amount and nothing for people to get frothy about, someone please correct me if I am wrong on the 2%.

I would like to see more personal responsibility given back to people tbh. There shouldn't be a choice to work part time and allow the worker to be topped up with tax credits from other workers to the extent they get the same amount.

There are jobs around, some of them people turn their noses up at them. Better off on benefits, pretend to live seperately and claim more, make poor choices in men, no worries - the good old state will support you again and again and again.

Rich twats - that's nice! There seems from some a great sense of entitlement to live on benefits and be supported by the state and not abide by the economics of the country. If your rent goes up and you cannot afford to stay you will have to move, just like people who cannot afford their mortgage due to for a example a job loss or partnership break down.

Why should you be any different?

Ah Sometimes i tend to forget that misogyny and classism usually go hand in hand.

Some jobs ARE only part time Hillingdon And extra hours tend to be intermittent and inconsistent and the system cant keep up ........FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME!

But its okfor you to make misogynistic comments Hillingdon If you cant take it then dont dish it out.

In regards to people on government schemes, in particular the Work Programme - these individuals will nearly all be in receipt of JSA so will be included on the count although their economic status recorded by the LFS would be dependant on their type of placement (whether with an employer, training, or volunteering work among others) and their activity in the survey reference week

So, looking at 2014/15 figures for workfare placements and recent ONS employment figures, the stats show that it's a minority and does not largely sway the recent unemployment figures either way.

In effect, they are saying more jobs have been created, no?

No one who is unemployed needs to spend £10 a week on a phone and £20 a week on clothes.

Hi, as it is much cheaper to live in some areas of the country of course Benefits should be capped more for cheaper areas. As for people working 16 hrs to get Benefits, which work out more than people working 39 hrs, stop them altogether.