Benefits cap ruling today

[Cyclone]

A form of charge card would be something I support. Stoping people from using their benefits to spend in places like Ladbrooks etc.

 

Is there any evidence that this happens, and what would stop them buying goods and then exchanging them for cash anyway?

[Mr Bloke]

Is there any evidence that this happens, and what would stop them buying goods and then exchanging them for cash anyway?

Hmmm... but surely, that's a good thing?

 

It would encourage entrepreneurial thinking by effectively making more people self-employed and therefore less likely to be dependant on any future benefits...

[Berberis]

Is there any evidence that this happens, and what would stop them buying goods and then exchanging them for cash anyway?

 

Putting barriers in the way of people using benefits to pay for luxury goods and activities such as gambling will not fix the issue, but it may stop some people, which is benefit enough to the system.

 

Im not saying its an ideal solution and im not adverse to alternatives. Personally I would like to see the likes of Ladbrooks going out of business as they prey on the poor.

 

---------- Post added 22-06-2017 at 14:43 ----------

 

That may be so but the actual cap is still what I stated.

 

Yes true, but as the government states, the cap is up to the amount I stated, which means someone who is not working can receive more than a person earning the national average salary. How can this be sane?

 

Average salary is £27,600. This results in a net take home of £22,047. Even if you compare this to the lower amount of £20,000 pa, this is only £2047 more a year or £39 week for working 40+ hours a week compared to 0.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Berberis

[Cyclone]

Firstly, should there be a barrier to people using benefits however they wish? Secondly, is there any evidence that people do so inappropriately?

And thirdly, you accept that it's only a 'barrier' then, and won't actually stop them if they wish to use it that way, you presumably consider the stigma attached to it to be a price that every other claimant should be willing to pay.

[Berberis]

Firstly, should there be a barrier to people using benefits however they wish?

 

I suppose it depends on your point of view. If you see benefits as a helping hand to those of us in need until they are able to once again support themselves, then yes. Take Holiday insurance as an example. Its not there to provide you with luxury goods or entertainment. It's a safety net so you get by while you need it. Being on benefits is not a choice for everyone, that I agree. However for those that it is, being given money to spend on luxury goods and entertainment is only ever going to encourage them to continue to request support from the rest of us.

 

Secondly, is there any evidence that people do so inappropriately?

If you believe that the people in receipt of benefits can spend the money they receive on whatever they like, then anyone with this opinion would not consider much as inappropriate. If you do not support this idea and would see mild restrictions in place, then yes some do. I suppose the flipside is also relevant, is there any evidence to prove they do not.

 

And thirdly, you accept that it's only a 'barrier' then, and won't actually stop them if they wish to use it that way, you presumably consider the stigma attached to it to be a price that every other claimant should be willing to pay.

 

Any barrier is only ever going to be so effective. There is a speed limit on the M1. This is a legal barrier that many break. It doesnt mean it should be abolished. It also doesnt mean if it were never present, people would not drive over the 70mph limit we have.

 

In regards to the stigma, there is already one (albeit reduced compared to previous generations) but if you mean a means to identify people as benefit recipients, there is no reason for this to be. We have the ability to create services that adhere to any requirement imaginable. A bank account that will not pay out to companies such as Ladbrooks for a start would not be too much of a task.

[Cyclone]

Is there any evidence to suggest that people spend their benefit money in Ladbrokes, that was your example.

 

Imagine two people in identical situations who receive identical benefits.

One chooses to live on beans for a day, turn down the heating and walk instead of catch the bus. They save a little bit to spend on a luxury.

Whatever it is, a pint with friends, a game of bingo, a bet on a horse, a present for a child. Have they done something wrong? Is there some reason they should be denied that *luxury*?

 

If you accept that the barrier wouldn't be effective, why bother with it?

[Anna B]

This case had something to do with two children under 2 being involved.

 

I can only think that with it being London, an exorbitant rent was being charged which pushed the amount up. I don't think many people outside London and the Home Counties break the benefits ceiling.

[Berberis]

Is there any evidence to suggest that people spend their benefit money in Ladbrokes, that was your example.

 

Oh I understand that, but is there any evidence to the contrary.

 

If I were a betting man, I would say its a safe bet that some do.

 

Do you think that no benefits recipients ever spend any of their money in gambling establishments?

 

---------- Post added 22-06-2017 at 15:44 ----------

 

This case had something to do with two children under 2 being involved.

 

I can only think that with it being London, an exorbitant rent was being charged which pushed the amount up. I don't think many people outside London and the Home Counties break the benefits ceiling.

 

Yes but this case has wide reaching effects. The Judge did not say "in this case" the cap was harmful. He merely stated the cap was harmful. Its the £25,000 a year cap I cant understand as it's so close to the national average salary.

[gomgeg]

It's a disgrace that anyone on benefits should be getting more than somebody working forty hours a week on minimum wage. what about trying something different and don't have kids until you can afford them.

The other week on radio they were discussing the manifestos and the Tory proposal to stop free school meals. A woman from Sheffield rang up and bleated on about how she would suffer financially, well why not think about that before having them, anyway what's child credit and other children's benefits for?

I expect she also wants someone to go round and wipe her backside for her.

[sgtkate]

It's a disgrace that anyone on benefits should be getting more than somebody working forty hours a week on minimum wage. what about trying something different and don't have kids until you can afford them.

The other week on radio they were discussing the manifestos and the Tory proposal to stop free school meals. A woman from Sheffield rang up and bleated on about how she would suffer financially, well why not think about that before having them, anyway what's child credit and other children's benefits for?

I expect she also wants someone to go round and wipe her backside for her.

 

Or perhaps as clearly the claimants were both single MOTHERS that the pathetic excuses for men that banged them up and then walked away leaving a child with no support or income is the actual problem here. Maybe if more men actually took a bit more responsibility when it comes to their offspring we'd have considerably less single mothers out there who are unable to work as childcare would cost more than they'd be able to get in wages. Because it's perfectly possible that these woman had good jobs before their child's dad walked out leaving them as the sole carer of their kid...and with childcare costs in London being an average of £70 per day, that's more than minimum wage, therefore the mothers can't actually afford to pay for that childcare so are forced to quit their jobs. Funny how you seem to think that the childcare is 'her' problem and not 'his'. Sums you up really.