love_rat Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 The cut in benefits to a £25k level which is said to be the national average (although in Sheffield I reckon the average is about £15k per anum), sounds pretty good to some people. However, on a serious level if there is a family who has about 10 children then obviously they would need at least a 5 bedroomed house and with 10 mouths to feed (plus 2 adults) it simpy will be impossible to feed that amount of people of 25k per annum. I am going to be controvertial here, but the children will be the ones to suffer as a consequence of their parents actions, but......but.......perhaps what we should do is to continue to pay for these familys even if it is over £100,000 per annum to do that, and pay for the housing until the kids grow up. To offset that, I think what should happen is that from April, rather than capping the benefits at 25k (which will hurt innocent children) it would be more humaine to say "never again, we pay benefits to the equivalent of £10,000 per annum, we pay child benefit for 2 children maximum. From April 2012, if you want more than 2 children and a bigger house then you go out to work" That way, from April 2012, anyone choosing a life on benefits will be no better off than someone on the minumum wage. I understand many people will be hankering to see the feckless suffer, however from my point of view it is the children who will be unfairly hit. Put some rules in, draw a line in the sand from April 2012 and then impose the rules from that point. From April 2012 people if they chose to have 3,4,5,6,7, or even 13 kids will know if they breed them, they have to feed them What do others thing to the new benefits cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 From the way you've described it, the proposals sound fine in theory. I support the idea of a Universal Credit. It will certainly hit those living in costly parts of the country (e.g. London). If I understand correctly Local Authorities will administer the scheme, and those in reciept of high benefits (e.g. child benefit) will have their housing benefit docked so in practice they won't recieve more than £500 a week. Although this doesn't include disabled benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 The way you've worded it makes it sound as though they are cutting benefits to an average of 25K. Can I point out that most people on benefits get nothing like that and it's a serious struggle. That said, I agree with you that a line in the sand should be drawn, and it should also apply to new single mothers who only have children to aquire a council house. After a certain date in the very near future this benefit should stop. There are plenty of ways of preventing babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 The cut in benefits to a £25k level which is said to be the national average (although in Sheffield I reckon the average is about £15k per anum), sounds pretty good to some people. What do others thing to the new benefits cap? Exactly what benefits are being capped at £25k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 How average is a family with 10 children, seriously? Second, afaik this does not include other benefits such as child benefit or tax credits, so your calculations are way off, if I'm right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Put some rules in, draw a line in the sand from April 2012 and then impose the rules from that point. From April 2012 people if they chose to have 3,4,5,6,7, or even 13 kids will know if they breed them, they have to feed them And if they can't afford to feed them, we just let them starve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Gobby Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 They are very fortunate to get benefits at all, so be grateful for what they get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Cost of unemployment benefits = £4 billion Cost of tax credits for employed people = £30 billion Winter fuel allowance = £4 billion State pensions = £70 billion Housing benefit = £25 billion The unemployed don't actually claim that much in benefits, it is not they whom should be worried. Houses for example, claim more than 5 times as much in benefits, than what unemployed people do. What are these houses spending their money on? Perhaps they should be given window cleaning vouchers, general repairs insurance etc. It's not right having a house spending all that money on cheap supermarket lager (the majority of the price being UK DUTY and VAT). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Cost of unemployment benefits = £4 billion Cost of tax credits for employed people = £30 billion Winter fuel allowance = £4 billion State pensions = £70 billion Housing benefit = £25 billion The unemployed don't actually claim that much in benefits, it is not they whom should be worried. Houses for example, claim more than 5 times as much in benefits, than what unemployed people do. What are these houses spending their money on? Perhaps they should be given window cleaning vouchers, general repairs insurance etc. It's not right having a house spending all that money on cheap supermarket lager (the majority of the price being UK DUTY and VAT). Its an old artical but contradicts your simplistic view The REAL cost of unemployment is £61 billion per year http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23380239-the-real-cost-of-unemployment-is-61-billion-per-year.do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 And if they can't afford to feed them, we just let them starve? If that was genuinely the situation I would be in favour of supplementing the benefits with food vouchers and vouchers for clothing/books/school equipment which can only be spent in specific stores on specific goods to ensure that this cash is actually spent on the children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.