New £23k Benefit Cap.

[legotits]

AIBU to ask if anyone still supports this?

Which families is this targeted at?

Anyone who will be affected, is it even feasible to not be pushed into debt?

Luxuries such as holidays, alcohol, non essential purposes should never have been catered for as there's no incentive to work when you can have all those things for doing nothing or the odd few hours.

I'm on benefits and I bought chocolate yesterday. Do I need to report to the stocks or something?

What utter rubbish.

Oh how I wish those bastard ministers were made to live in poverty for a few weeks

ginger. But if I was an MP, I could have bought a duck house (whatever the fuck that is) and charged it to expenses, and that would be completely fine by sheldon (who by the way, avoids every example of tax dodging and expenses fiddling and focuses only on the poor)

I actually think sheldon is George Osborne's MN username (hums 'White Lines'...)

There's a tory MP who today has been 'forgiven' for tax avoidance in an amount in excess of the current NHS debt!

All current cabinet members including May voted AGAINST the increase to the nmw.

Jess like these you mean

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/

Golightly are you really basing your opinion on TV shows?!

Good god the stupidity.

The ignorance around the issues and system of benefits, is mind boggling. As if it isn't complex enough anyway.

I just wish that the ill educated would inform themselves as they seem so passionate about it. I don't understand why they don't listen when people tell them their knowledge is wrong.
Of course everyone should have an opinion, but ffs make it an informed one.

Money comes in one hand and goes out with the other. It is morally wrong to allow people to be in the position of not being able to meet their basic needs when they are unable to work.

I am able to work, I started a new job tonight just pt.
It has come at the same time as the cuts and the increase will mean we lose tc.
The ironic thing is that it is the result of some other related factor and has absolutely nothing to do with the cuts.
So now we have reached the dizzy heights of earning more, paying out more and being about the same, for a while. I hope that isn't on the way to becoming mc.
We are lucky, there are people who are really struggling and my heart goes out to them all.

Exactly, that Portia! . But far more reasonable to get up in arms about a single mother who gets £70 a week, right?

Seriously, sheldon, engineer and co, focus on the real wankers that got us into this mess, rather than vilifying the usual targets. You all seem to think you're incredibly clever and astute, and yet you swallow the bollocks the right wing press peddles hook, line and sinker.

Christ! £172 taxi ride of less than a mile, £35 quid breakfasts, £10,000 jaunts, millions in avoided taxes, and yet it's benefit claimants 'draining the country' yea right!

IT is more difficult to move if you are on benefits. It's difficult to move when you work. However I think you just do the best you can. You might be better if you move financially, but that may be outweighed by other considerations.

I'm not sure I would work in that sítuation looking at the figures given by graph earlier. The extra you'd earn just doesn't seem worthwhile. especially if I didn't like the job on offer.

Sheldon, engineer etc do you ever read/watch anything produced by anyone NOT funded by Murdoch/Tories?

This will effect my DD, its not benefit cap that needs addressing but the landlord's who charge ridiculous amounts in rent that w were previously met by hb but not now, landlord's need to be regulated as there's not enough public housing

Really hope a journalist picks up this thread.

Why assume it's from Murdoch/Tories. Just because somebody dares have a different opinion doesn't make it biased or wrong. It's not really a debate if everyone agrees.

Advanced search on here will give plenty of examples of people who use the system to fund their life rather than work hard for it.

There are plenty on benefits who truly have no choice but there are plenty that could change their life but don't want to. That money could be far better spent, its public money and should be used for the maximum effect not to pay people to laze at home or keep reproducing.

A lot of the low paid work is public sector work. Increasing the minimum rate of pay for those workers - might it help, or would it just increase the public wage bill?

The other aspect is differential. If you pay a hca the same as a nurse might that be problematic?

All those sorts of questions are tied into how much we are prepared to pay in benefits.

I completely agree with it.

I also think that receiving benefits should be a time limited thing (with exceptions for those too ill to work), to prevent this culture that we have where several generations are on benefits and never work.
How can you teach a work ethic to your children when they don't see it in you?

At the very least, claimants who have been on benefits for longer than 6 months should have to do some kind of work in order to receive their money; even if it's volunteering, partly to keep them busy, and to keep them used to going out to work for their money.

There should be no such thing as money for nothing, and unless you're seriously ill or disabled, you shouldn't be able to sit at home on your bum doing nothing, and expecting the state to keep you.

There are many people who earn less than this, but because they work and have no dependants, etc, they don't qualify for help from the government. So why should others be kept by state and not have to work for it?

Please rtft and links

There isn't a "culture" of multi generational families who don't work and claim benefits. The Joseph Rowntree Foudnarion found that that these families were not non-existent but they were very much a small minority. I do find it funny though that people keep trotting out ill-informed rubbish though.

At the very least, claimants who have been on benefits for longer than 6 months should have to do some kind of work in order to receive their money; even if it's volunteering, partly to keep them busy, and to keep them used to going out to work for their money.

And how then will they look for work? And how will they pay for childcare?

To keep them busy?!? What so they don't procreate more children?

If they are expected to work, they should be getting NMW. They should not be forced to work for the benefits.

FFS.

2Bottledup

What do you suggest we do with the people on benefits after the "time limit"
let them starve? Workhouse, perhaps?
Mind boggling.

crashdoll But they KNOW all these families, dontchaknow?!? it's their neighbour's cousin's ex-BIL and their daughter's friend's mum's neighbour. It's EVERYWHERE. These threads are full of people who claim to know a zillion of 'em. A zillion!!!

I don't know where Rowntree wasn't bothering to look but I have relatives that are multi generational non workers. There are many out there.

See *crashdoll"? They're everywhere. Perhaps being feckless is contagious.....

Plsase provide a link to prove it