Benefit Caps: Good, bad or indifferent?

[fordylad]

What we need to do is change the attitude of the people claiming benefits. I know a great deal of young females that get pregnant to whoever! just to live a life, where everything is provided by the state! this has a knock on effect that they punch out equally lazy children into a benefit society!
The change needed, needs to hash,
When people claim that employment is hard to come by I totally disagree!! I left school with little qualifications, but I spent many hours working in various jobs before embarking on a career in the RAF. I have luckily gone from one well paid job to my next career, but the point is this, I have never expected anyone to bail me out, all it takes is hard work!! Unfortunatly We have the Jeremy kyle society that claims poverty from an iPhone ! In a free council house!

 

[Flamingo]

It's hard to generalise, but a lot of this comes down to attitude and expectations. It ties in to the riots, and a culture that pervades of people knowing all their rights, none of their responsibilities.

I was brought up on a council estate, my father was disabled through illness, and there were six children. My mother worked, and every one of us now has a third-level education (which I hasten to add, we all paid for - none of us were full-time students). We were brought up to "expect nowt for nowt", and my parents would have been horrified at the thoughts of any of us signing on when there was any paid employment - be it washing windows or picking potatoes - available.

The benefit system should be there as a safety net for those who NEED the support, short-term. It should not be a lifestyle choice.

Having children is not an illness, or a reason not to work. My wife and I have, we both manage to work full-time. A job not being to your expectations or below your level of ability is not a reason not to do it, or to turn it down - it'll do until something else comes along.

Everybody can make an excuse for every generalisation, but, in every specific case, there is a reason why somebody is on benefits, and unless that reason is to do with they having a demonstrable inability to work (and I don't mean the vague generalisations like "depression" or "bad back" that GP's sign on forms to get rid their heartsink Monday morning patients) then I don't think that having a cap of £26K in the value of benefits one can receive from the state as anything to complain about.

To put it into perspective, to have that level of income from savings over a 25 year period, you would need to start with over £500 000 in the bank, paying 3%. Hardly poverty.

http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/savings-income-calculator.aspx

 

[fordylad]

I totally agree, I too am from a very deprived area in south manchester, where unemployment is high! But like I said there is plenty of work, it's the attitude that said work is below them!!

 

[Flamingo]

i've come across a benefits calculator, going to have a play to see how to get lots of benefits
http://www.turn2us.org.uk/benefits_search.aspx

I've just had a play with this. I am sitting here with my chin touching the floor. hock:

Apart from everything else, it now explains why the parents (both not working) of two children in my kids class were so desperate to get their pair diagnosed as ADHD, (over the objections of the school), and dragged them around Dr. after Dr. until the diagnosis was finally made and tablets prescribed...

In our innocence, my wife and I both thought that they were just being over-protective :roll:

 

[Lampshade]

Sorry to burst your Daily Mail bubble, but most of those people won't bother voting at all. :roll:

Exactly, but they don't need to; the aforementioned gerrymandering has seen to it that there wouldn't be enough Conservatives in that constituency to produce a big enough swing against Labour, and since that seat will be Labour come what may, they can get away with doing nothing at all. In marginal seats this wouldn't happen because there's always a looming threat from the opposition.

They did this near where I live, Labour altered the boundaries so the (relatively) more affluent areas became absorbed into already Conservative safe seats, leaving the more deprived areas to become a Labour safe seat now all the potential Tory voters are out of the picture. The actual number of seats remained the same, but it meant Labour went from having a marginal seat to a safe seat.

It's not a Daily Mail bubble, it's common knowledge; it's been in the news more times than I care to mention. Also, I read the Independent.

 

[Flamingo]

To be fair, the tories did the same, remember Westminster Council?

 

[SS4]

Exactly, but they don't need to; the aforementioned gerrymandering has seen to it that there wouldn't be enough Conservatives in that constituency to produce a big enough swing against Labour, and since that seat will be Labour come what may, they can get away with doing nothing at all. In marginal seats this wouldn't happen because there's always a looming threat from the opposition.

They did this near where I live, Labour altered the boundaries so the (relatively) more affluent areas became absorbed into already Conservative safe seats, leaving the more deprived areas to become a Labour safe seat now all the potential Tory voters are out of the picture. The actual number of seats remained the same, but it meant Labour went from having a marginal seat to a safe seat.

It's not a Daily Mail bubble, it's common knowledge; it's been in the news more times than I care to mention. Also, I read the Independent.

Right, because the Conservatives would never dream of doing such a thing :roll:. For all you know Labour "fix" Tory gerrymandering and then the Tories "fix" Labour gerrymandering und so weiter.

This may come as a shock but the Tories are not whiter than white

 

[ainsworth74]

This may come as a shock but the Tories are not whiter than white

Indeed! They are of course in fact blue

 

[Lampshade]

This may come as a shock but the Tories are not whiter than white

Never said they were, I despise the Tories, but I equally despise Labour. I'm firmly a 'none of the above' voter.

 

[Flamingo]

Never said they were, I despise the Tories, but I equally despise Labour. I'm firmly a 'none of the above' voter.

We'll put you down as Lib Dem then (or as they have become, Tory lite )

 

[jon0844]

Exactly, but they don't need to; the aforementioned gerrymandering has seen to it that there wouldn't be enough Conservatives in that constituency to produce a big enough swing against Labour, and since that seat will be Labour come what may, they can get away with doing nothing at all. In marginal seats this wouldn't happen because there's always a looming threat from the opposition.

This is what gets me. You have these safe Labour areas that are totally run down and, well to put it frankly, s**t holes - and they remain in control!

Far from Labour supporting people in these areas, they just ignore them as they know nobody will ever stand up and vote for anyone else. In fact, they'll continue to believe that it's only by having Labour looking out for their interests instead of the Tories looking out for the rich, that they'll ever stand a chance of living a better life.

Wake up! See that you're being kept down and break away (as many do, as we often hear when the press likes to report more positive things) and make a better life for yourself. A lot of that relies on you not worrying about who is in power and simply doing what you need to do to get ahead - like getting a better education, getting help on filling in forms, interview techniques or whatever.

(And yes, the Tories and anyone else in power would do the same - but that does not make it right one bit. I firmly believe we get the Governments we deserve because so few people take any interest in doing the things that can change things - they just like to rant in pubs, oh and forums, which changes nothing!).

The only people I'd say shouldn't suffer from any cap are people who claim some sort of disability benefit (and I don't think this was to be included in the capping anyway). But, you do then subject people to be tested properly to ensure it isn't abused. By filtering out the chancers, you actually help everyone else as a) there's more money for the genuine claimants and b) you can then show it to be fair, and so nobody claiming needs to be stigmatised. Far too many people are the opposite of those abusing benefits - they're too proud to claim what they're entitled to.

 

[SS4]

The only people I'd say shouldn't suffer from any cap are people who claim some sort of disability benefit (and I don't think this was to be included in the capping anyway). But, you do then subject people to be tested properly to ensure it isn't abused. By filtering out the chancers, you actually help everyone else as a) there's more money for the genuine claimants and b) you can then show it to be fair, and so nobody claiming needs to be stigmatised. Far too many people are the opposite of those abusing benefits - they're too proud to claim what they're entitled to.

a) Genuine as defined by ATOS who like to fail everybody

b) The ESA medical is anything but fair. If it were would one third of appeals succeed (IFA online)? I cannot see a DLA medical being any fairer.

There needs to be an independent review and ideally fundamental change to the way medical testing works. It is impossible to judge someone's health on a half day!

 

[jon0844]

I agree that people need to be tested fairly and accurately. In some cases, people will need to 're-tested', while in some cases it's clear that a condition may be permanent.

Besides blaming Government for being too harsh, let's blame those who fraudulently claim who have made everyone suspicious of the genuine ones.

 

[anthony263]

I agree that people need to be tested fairly and accurately. In some cases, people will need to 're-tested', while in some cases it's clear that a condition may be permanent.

Besides blaming Government for being too harsh, let's blame those who fraudulently claim who have made everyone suspicious of the genuine ones.

I agree with what you have said above. My father has already been tested and so has my mother and have been told that they cannot work although like my father said to the doctor etc he would rather be working if he could.

I am cliaming job seekers at the moment even though I must admit I wish I was working as I am becoming very bored I spend the majority of my time looking for jobs, doing work experience but there just isnt anything out there.

Something else I have noticed is that some employers are not keen on hiring someone who is reliant on public transport ( take me for an example) they should remeber a lot of people just cannot afford to run a car anymore especially because of the cost of fuel.

Anway I have applied for a couple of jobs this morning so I am hoping I might get lucky and at least get an interview since I haven't had 1 for over 2 years now.

 

[SS4]

I agree that people need to be tested fairly and accurately. In some cases, people will need to 're-tested', while in some cases it's clear that a condition may be permanent.

Besides blaming Government for being too harsh, let's blame those who fraudulently claim who have made everyone suspicious of the genuine ones.

Blaming the government is not harsh, they hired ATOS who have been farcical. No test which judges capability on a half-day can be neither fair nor accurate, this is especially indicative with mental illness and variable illnesses (migraines for example)

Something else I have noticed is that some employers are not keen on hiring someone who is reliant on public transport ( take me for an example) they should remeber a lot of people just cannot afford to run a car anymore especially because of the cost of fuel.

I've noticed that, employers are asking for someone with own transport where it's not strictly necessary and these are jobs in Birmingham so I can only imagine what it would be like for someone in more rural areas.
An employer shouldn't care unless it is necessary to drive during working hours (between offices etc) since getting to and from work is an employee's responsibility.

 

[Lampshade]

I've noticed that, employers are asking for someone with own transport where it's not strictly necessary and these are jobs in Birmingham so I can only imagine what it would be like for someone in more rural areas.
An employer shouldn't care unless it is necessary to drive during working hours (between offices etc) since getting to and from work is an employee's responsibility.

That one's just a way of saying no students, but they can't actually say that in the job description as it'd be seen as discriminatory.

 

[Barton Keyes]

The Government are proposing to cap benefits at £26,000 (untaxed). This is broadly equivalent to someone paying tax earning over £30,000. However, it is claimed that this will disproportionately affect some people, and force others into poverty.

Seems reasonable enough though there will be hard cases, especially involving children, and many will end up being housed by local authorities at council tax payers expense so the savings are probably small. Vastly more money could be recouped from rich people who arrange their affairs so as to pay hardly any tax at all while ranting about 'scroungers'.

That said, the welfare setup is in need of repair. A 'workfare' scheme might be a good way to get people into the habit of working - good for them and for the rest of us - and would disincentivise those who milk the system.

 

[Ferret]

I agree Barton Keyes, but you can imagine the howls of the lefties complaining about slave labour! Yawn.

To me Labour have been outflanked on this one. Agree with the cap and they are derided for not having done the same in Government. Disagree with it and have even the Indy crucifying them for opposing for opposition's sake! Oh, and it provides a handy wide open goal for the Conservatives to fire at, who know where public opinion stands on the matter. 'Labour on wrong side of argument again' type fodder. Poor Ed Miliband really has got the poisoned chalice....

o