Benefit cap goes before the Lords.

[mobertol]

I think "gobsmacked" is the word that comes to mind when reading of these families living in luxury while claiming benefits. How on earth do they wangle it and who are the "geniuses" giving the OK to their choice of home?

Reasonable accomodation and enough money to live with dignity should be the parameters used to calculate benefits to those who need them. It seems there's a trend emerging -to be upwardly mobile in today's Britain you need to be unscrupulous, lazy and know how to work the system.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy

Trust me, once the government has watered down these reforms to get it through Parliament no money will be saved. There will be replacements payments or benefits will be renamed. The Tories are merely playing politics to pander to the Daily Mail reading types and looking at the polls it seems to be working. Divide and rule, divide and rule.

Yes, two wrongs don't make a right but some wrongs are bigger than others. We should concentrate on the bigger wrongs first.

Yup, divide and rule.

There's the vast majority, who can see benefits should be capped, which limits the amount that some people can fleece from the system.

Then there's you, and the other soft saps. The small minority who don't think it's a particular problem.

Divide us all you like.

Just keep the soft saps out of my field of vision.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I have never been out of work. I have always paid my taxes(and still do from my pension - interestingly, the last labour govt doubled my tax bill when the rate went up from 10pence to 20 pence)....I have never in my life made a salary that amounted to 32K(that is what 26k is worth after tax)despite having a very responsible job (peoples lives depended on my expertise)I do not think it is right that someone can get 26K per annum for sitting on their btms.

Yes there is tax avoidance, but that isn't the fault of the people...it is the fault of the system....and the system is at fault for paying people more to stay at home that they could make by going out to work....and that is why the system should be changed.

[ToffeeGuy]

Imagine a person has been earning £100,000p.a. for years, contributing roughly £50,000 a year in tax. Through no fault of their own they are made redundant. Because of the benefit cap they would have to move house, change schools for their kids and generally uproot to an area where it is more difficult to travel to/get a new job. Thus reducing the chances of them getting a new job within days/weeks/months and off benefits.

Don't presume that everyone who receives benefits hasn't contributed to it fully and when they need it should be entitled to it.

[Margaret Pilkington]

If a person has been earning that kind of money then you would think that perhaps they would have the sense (in these difficult times) to put some of that money away.....a rainy day fund. This crisis isn't exactly new....it has been going on for some 4 years now.
Someone on this kind of salary would(you hope) have invested in a house of their own, rather than relying on paying out rent.
It seems that in the city of London, this is where most of the benefit goes....to pay extortionate rents

I don't begrudge the people who have paid into the system so much as those who come here have not worked, pay nothing into the system and send the benefit money back to the country of origin where it will enrich their economy.

It should never be more profitable to live on benefits than to go out to work....and let's face it there are working families that do not bring in the kind of money that this bill is talking about.
Benefits should be a helping hand, not a way of life.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy

Imagine a person has been earning £100,000p.a. for years, contributing roughly £50,000 a year in tax. Through no fault of their own they are made redundant. Because of the benefit cap they would have to move house, change schools for their kids and generally uproot to an area where it is more difficult to travel to/get a new job. Thus reducing the chances of them getting a new job within days/weeks/months and off benefits.

Don't presume that everyone who receives benefits hasn't contributed to it fully and when they need it should be entitled to it.

In the real world you cut your coat according to your cloth.

Sadly the real world today allows people to live a life of luxury, paid for by hard working people, who haven't a cat in Hell's chance of enjoying the same life-style they're funding for someone else to live.

Housing benefits: Somali asylum seeker Saeed Khaliif's family put up in £2m house | Mail Online

They system is ludicrous, and in the long-term unsustainable, and needs addressing....now.

[cashman]

Its simple to me, Like Spain/Italy those who have contributed nowt,should get nowt,end of. Thats were they should start, But are they? Are they hell as like.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy

Imagine a person has been earning £100,000p.a. for years, contributing roughly £50,000 a year in tax. Through no fault of their own they are made redundant. Because of the benefit cap they would have to move house, change schools for their kids and generally uproot to an area where it is more difficult to travel to/get a new job. Thus reducing the chances of them getting a new job within days/weeks/months and off benefits.

Don't presume that everyone who receives benefits hasn't contributed to it fully and when they need it should be entitled to it.

So, in soft sap land, there should be no cap at all, on the amount of Housing Benefit anyone is able to get?

Blenheim Palace's suddenly vacated, and a family on benefits from Croydon fancy some Oxforshire country air.

You'd be happy stumping up £324,000.00 per week to fund their chosen location to rent, I suppose?

Give me strength, to suffer the soft in the head, bleeding heart liberals, more gladly.

Please.

[ToffeeGuy]

Originally Posted by garinda

In the real world you cut your coat according to your cloth.

Sadly the real world today allows people to live a life of luxury, paid for by hard working people, who haven't a cat in Hell's chance of enjoying the same life-style they're funding for someone else to live.

Housing benefits: Somali asylum seeker Saeed Khaliif's family put up in £2m house | Mail Online

They system is ludicrous, and in the long-term unsustainable, and needs addressing....now.

Ah yes, the Daily Mail dream story which combines asylum seekers with house prices.

As I've said these reforms will only save £270m per year. There's nothing to say that for every person identified in Daily Mail propaganda there aren't 100 genuine cases who have paid into the system for years and need help for a short time.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy

Ah yes, the Daily Mail dream story which combines asylum seekers with house prices.

As I've said these reforms will only save £270m per year. There's nothing to say that for every person identified in Daily Mail propaganda there aren't 100 genuine cases who have paid into the system for years and need help for a short time.

Yeh really are a clown,if yeh think he takes any heed of the Daily Mail,Seems to me you are in a dream.

[MargaretR]

To provide you with a historical background to this Benefit Cap legislation I provide you with some facts about something very similar operated from 1966 to 1974.

It was called a 'Wage Stop' applied to Supplementary Benefits of that time.

Here are the arguments for and against, as debated in Parliament at the time -

WAGE STOP RULE (Hansard, 12 July 1974)

The historical differences between then and now are -
..we now have an acute shortage of social housing - (housing people in mansions didn't happen).
..we now have fewer jobs available
..child benefit wasn't paid for the first child and the rate for subsequent children was paltry.

I can see both sides of the argument have value, but the Benefit Cap needs to be accompanied by a large scale building of affordable rented housing and an increase in employment opportunities.
Without those additions, some families will be homeless, some children will be raised malnourished - which will cause an expense burden on other areas of our welfare state.

[flashy]

I totally agree with Garinda, it may also stop 'single' women having 4,5,6 children just to stay on benefits....i don't think these women that are popping these kids out realise that they will soon have to sign on now when their youngest child reaches 12 months old, if they don't prove they have applied for jobs (mine is currently 10 jobs to be applied for a fortnight) that they will lose all their benefits, including housing benefit and council tax benefit

sorry, not quite the same argument as originally stated but it is a bugbare of mine, yes i've been on benefits for 15 years, i've 'scrounged off the state' and i'm not proud of it....i made sure i only had ONE child, i have always done volunteer work therefore not sitting on my arse reaping the rewards of the state for nothing.

Ok rant over...i need a brew now

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy

Ah yes, the Daily Mail dream story which combines asylum seekers with house prices.

As I've said these reforms will only save £270m per year. There's nothing to say that for every person identified in Daily Mail propaganda there aren't 100 genuine cases who have paid into the system for years and need help for a short time.

These stories aren't just in The Mail......they are in other newspapers too.

And you are right when you say that for every person identified in the mail there may be 100 others who have paid into the system.

And if you watch the BBC in a morning(Saints and Scroungers) you will see that there are people who come here and defraud the benefits system of hundreds of thousands of pounds by claiming in different names, claiming for non existent children, claiming housing benefits for several properties, whilst having hundred of thousands of pounds in bank accounts.
This is money out of your pocket, which could be going to genuine claimants.

I am sure MargaretR is right when she tells us that it has been going on since the sixties, but if that is the case why haven't successive governments made efforts to tighten up the system....because it is the system which is at fault.

The welfare system was never meant to be a life style choice...it was meant to offer a helping hand.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy

Ah yes, the Daily Mail dream story which combines asylum seekers with house prices.

As I've said these reforms will only save £270m per year. There's nothing to say that for every person identified in Daily Mail propaganda there aren't 100 genuine cases who have paid into the system for years and need help for a short time.

If you do a search, soft sap, you'll see this, and other cases, reported in most of the press.

As for 'only' saving the tax payer £270,000,000.00.

As my old Granny used to say to me...

'If you don't want people to think you're a bit soft in the head, look after the millions, and the billions will look after themselves.'

[Gordon Booth]

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy

Ah yes, the Daily Mail dream story which combines asylum seekers with house prices.

As I've said these reforms will only save £270m per year. There's nothing to say that for every person identified in Daily Mail propaganda there aren't 100 genuine cases who have paid into the system for years and need help for a short time.

There's nothing to say there are 100 genuine cases either!
Let's take your emotional argument a little further- there's nothing to say there aren't 1000s of genuine cases, maybe more.
Also in the interests of fairness if an asylum seeker can get a free £2 million mansion why not a person who has lived here all their lives? Even if they've never worked. In fact I fancy one myself.
Stick to facts, keep emotional exaggerations out of it(although I don't think even sticking to facts will help your case).
As for Daily Mail propaganda-the Con/Dems are for it, Labour is for it, the Leaders of all the parties have clearly supported it-you're running out of allies(and logical arguments).