Lower benefits cap

[phil752]

we are way off topic :hihi:

[Anna B]

As of Monday, the cap is falling from a limit set three years ago in England, Wales and Scotland of £500 a week for couples or those who have children. The limit for single people with no children was £350 per week. The benefit cap was introduced in Northern Ireland at the end of May.

 

Under the new cap, those living in the UK outside of Greater London will receive a maximum of:

 

£384.62 per week (£20,000 a year) for a couple

£384.62 per week (£20,000 a year) for single people whose children live with them

£257.69 per week (£13,400 a year) for single people who do not have children or whose children do not live with them.

 

Can people that are healthy really think its ok to get more than £20,000, maybe £20,000 is too much?

Its more than I earn.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37873922

 

Meanwhile, back on topic...

 

This benefit cap is designed to make it look as if those on benefits receive these sorts of amounts. Can I remind people, it is a maximum amount and very few get anything like it. Most of people's benefit goes on rent anyway, and straight into the Landlord's pocket, so it would be better to cap rents.

 

Can I suggest people take themselves off to the Showroom Cinema to see 'I, Daniel Blake' to see what a farce our benefits system is, and how it can affect good, honest people who are down on their luck.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2016 at 22:11 ----------

 

What in work benefits would a young, single person earning 25k get?

 

A young, single unemployed person would get about £280 a month benefits, plus housing benefit which may not cover the full cost of their rent, the shortfall having to be made up from the £280. And very little else.

 

That's a long way from the figures being bandied about, and the reason a lot of kids are having to stay in the family home until well into their thirties. (And their parents get no money for them as a dependent.)

[Cyclone]

The cap is designed to cap.

Only an idiot who hadn't even read the basic articles about the issue would think that many people are receiving that much.

 

---------- Post added 14-11-2016 at 07:26 ----------

 

The food they eat is more expensive than the healthy food.

 

You are Jamie Oliver and I claim my £5.

You also clearly know very little about poverty, do some reading.

[Petminder]

The cap is designed to cap.

Only an idiot who hadn't even read the basic articles about the issue would think that many people are receiving that much.

 

---------- Post added 14-11-2016 at 07:26 ----------

 

 

You are Jamie Oliver and I claim my £5.

You also clearly know very little about poverty, do some reading.

 

 

Why do people like you never learn, calling people idiots for holding an opposing opinion to the one you hold isn't going to change their opinion, it will just reinforce their belief that they are right and it is you that is wrong. You think you are right so convince people that you are right by supporting your position with provable facts instead of insults.

 

---------- Post added 14-11-2016 at 08:53 ----------

 

Meanwhile, back on topic...

 

This benefit cap is designed to make it look as if those on benefits receive these sorts of amounts. Can I remind people, it is a maximum amount and very few get anything like it. Most of people's benefit goes on rent anyway, and straight into the Landlord's pocket, so it would be better to cap rents.

 

Can I suggest people take themselves off to the Showroom Cinema to see 'I, Daniel Blake' to see what a farce our benefits system is, and how it can affect good, honest people who are down on their luck.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2016 at 22:11 ----------

 

 

A young, single unemployed person would get about £280 a month benefits, plus housing benefit which may not cover the full cost of their rent, the shortfall having to be made up from the £280. And very little else.

 

That's a long way from the figures being bandied about, and the reason a lot of kids are having to stay in the family home until well into their thirties. (And their parents get no money for them as a dependent.)

 

This is a radical idea but they could get jobs, pay their parents a small amount to cover the cost of the food they eat and either enjoy life with the remainder of their income or save up for the day they want to fly the nest.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Petminder

[unbeliever]

 

This is a radical idea but they could get jobs, pay their parents a small amount to cover the cost of the food they eat and either enjoy life with the remainder of their income or save up for the day they want to fly the nest.

 

 

¿ Awww, that's so mean. We should just give them more free money and stuff cause of corporations and bankers' bonuses and all that 1% stuff. ¿

[Petminder]

¿ Awww, that's so mean. We should just give them more free money and stuff cause of corporations and bankers' bonuses and all that 1% stuff. ¿

 

Yep, that's me, mean and inhumane, I even treat my dog the same, I control what she eats and how much exercise she gets because if I didn't she would eat too much unhealthy food, get fat and cost me a fortune in vet bills.

[Anna B]

Why do people like you never learn, calling people idiots for holding an opposing opinion to the one you hold isn't going to change their opinion, it will just reinforce their belief that they are right and it is you that is wrong. You think you are right so convince people that you are right by supporting your position with provable facts instead of insults.

 

---------- Post added 14-11-2016 at 08:53 ----------

 

 

This is a radical idea but they could get jobs, pay their parents a small amount to cover the cost of the food they eat and either enjoy life with the remainder of their income or save up for the day they want to fly the nest.

 

Good idea, but not that simple.

 

If it was a regular job you would be right, but they are in dwindling supply.

 

Times have changed. Beggars can't be choosers and in this situation the jobs on offer are often low paid, 0 hours, temporary contract, self employed etc and can leave the worker in serious financial trouble and serious debt.

 

Think how you would manage/budget if you didn't know from one week to the next how much money you had coming in or whether you could even cover your rent. This is the disastrous situation people find themselves in and is the quickest route to homelessness I know.

[Robin-H]

Good idea, but not that simple.

 

If it was a regular job you would be right, but they are in dwindling supply.

 

Times have changed. Beggars can't be choosers and in this situation the jobs on offer are often low paid, 0 hours, temporary contract, self employed etc and can leave the worker in serious financial trouble and serious debt.

 

Think how you would manage/budget if you didn't know from one week to the next how much money you had coming in or whether you could even cover your rent. This is the disastrous situation people find themselves in and is the quickest route to homelessness I know.

 

Are regular jobs in dwindling supply? That is quite a statement to make with no back up evidence.

 

Take June to August 2016. There were 23.3 million people working full time. This was an increase of 362,000 people more than a year before.

 

The number of people working part time was 8.58 million. This was an increase of 198,000 on the year before.

 

Therefore more full time jobs are being created and filled than part time. Why do you say that 'regular' jobs are dwindling?

 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/october2016

[El Cid]

Are regular jobs in dwindling supply? That is quite a statement to make with no back up evidence.

 

Take June to August 2016. There were 23.3 million people working full time. This was an increase of 362,000 people more than a year before.

 

 

net migration = +327,000 so it works out as just a slight improvement.

[Cyclone]

Why do people like you never learn, calling people idiots for holding an opposing opinion to the one you hold isn't going to change their opinion, it will just reinforce their belief that they are right and it is you that is wrong. You think you are right so convince people that you are right by supporting your position with provable facts instead of insults.

You've either entirely misread what I wrote, or deliberately misunderstood in order to get upset.

I didn't call anyone specific an idiot. Certainly not a poster in this thread.

People who don't actually bother to find out the facts about things and refuse to learn even when told though, I think the label is appropriate.

Only an idiot would think that a cap meant that lots of people were receiving that amount. If you decided you were one of those idiots, that's not really my problem.

I can't prove or disprove how many people think that a benefit cap of 20k/annum believe that's because many people claim benefits greater than that, can you?

I can prove that people who believe that are factually incorrect of course.

 

This is a radical idea but they could get jobs, pay their parents a small amount to cover the cost of the food they eat and either enjoy life with the remainder of their income or save up for the day they want to fly the nest.

And missing the point here as well. Nobody said that they SHOULD be claiming this, or that it was somehow a good thing to do. They simply pointed out that the amount they can claim is so far away from 20k/year that it's not even funny. £3360/year, not counting HB which I'm going to guess is about 5k/year for a single <25 person.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Cyclone