Lower benefits cap

[Robin-H]

Wow, when was that and is it still available?

 

It was in 2014, so granted prices might be a little more expensive now. Had just been completely renovated, so everything was new, even the mattresses were brand new (and memory foam). Perhaps I was just very lucky..

[jonjo2]

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

 

where do they get their figures from, how doe,s a couple get that much, I and my wife are both pensioners and do not get anywhere near that amount.

[Robin-H]

where do they get their figures from, how doe,s a couple get that much, I and my wife are both pensioners and do not get anywhere near that amount.

 

That figure is the cap, which means it is the maximum amount somebody would be entitled to get. It does not mean that everybody will be entitled to that, as it will depend on each individual or couples circumstances.

 

I, for example, receive a lot less than £13,400 from the government (as in £13,400 less)

[tzijlstra]

What do you mean by separating children upto the age of 16?

 

To consider children as separate from the total amount capped. So the 20K cap should just be for the amount the parent(s) is entitled to (including housing) and the amount per child (up to 3? children) should still entitle the parent(s) to extra benefits.

 

So if I run a shop I can't employ parents?

 

Why wouldn't you be able to? I have responsibility for 2 9-5 'shops' and manage to allow my staff to come in the hours that suit them best so they can arrange childcare. It just takes a bit of good will and smart management.

[unbeliever]

When dealing with families with children, there seem to be 3 basic options.

1. Hand over a lot of money to feckless people with kids;

2. Refuse to fund feckless people with kids and see the kids suffer;

3. Seize the children of the feckless.

 

Now don't get distracted here. Of course not everybody who is dependent on benefits is feckless. That's not what I'm saying. But the general feeling seems to be that breeding should not be a legitimate lifestyle choice and that people who can work have a moral obligation to do so.

Edited November 7, 2016 by unbeliever
stupid auto-correct

[999tigger]

When dealing with families with children, there seem to be 3 basic options.

1. Hand over a lot of money to feckless people with kids;

2. Refuse to fund faceless people with kids and see the kids suffer;

3. Seize the children of the feckless.

 

Now don't get distracted here. Of course not everybody who is dependent on benefits is feckless. That's not what I'm saying. But the general feeling seems to be that breeding should not be a legitimate lifestyle choice and that people who can work have a moral obligation to do so.

 

You missed the current option, which is a variation of 2.

 

Give full notice that children above a certain number (born after a certain date , so known in advance) will not be funded by the state. This should put a curb on their breeding.

[unbeliever]

You missed the current option, which is a variation of 2.

 

Give full notice that children above a certain number (born after a certain date , so known in advance) will not be funded by the state. This should put a curb on their breeding.

 

Depends. As far as I'm concerned it's a bluff. If it's called then we're back to options 1 and 3.

[Petminder]

You missed the current option, which is a variation of 2.

 

Give full notice that children above a certain number (born after a certain date , so known in advance) will not be funded by the state. This should put a curb on their breeding.

 

That would leave us with a two tear system, irresponsible people will still have too many children and their children will have to go without, its clear that some people won't be able to live in the knowledge that some children will go hungry because they were unlucky enough to be born to irresponsible parents.

[I1L2T3]

The language being used here is disgusting. 'Breeding'? This makes people sound like animals.

[Petminder]

When dealing with families with children, there seem to be 3 basic options.

1. Hand over a lot of money to feckless people with kids;

2. Refuse to fund feckless people with kids and see the kids suffer;

3. Seize the children of the feckless.

 

Now don't get distracted here. Of course not everybody who is dependent on benefits is feckless. That's not what I'm saying. But the general feeling seems to be that breeding should not be a legitimate lifestyle choice and that people who can work have a moral obligation to do so.

 

Option 4, Don't give them money, give the children three meals a day at school and keep a supply of second hand cloths to pass onto them, pay the parents rent and energy bills, and give them a food hamper each week.

 

---------- Post added 08-11-2016 at 08:19 ----------

 

The language being used here is disgusting. 'Breeding'? This makes people sound like animals.

 

We are animals and we do breed.