Cap on Benefits link worth a read

[davewhit]

Bottom of page table worth a read too



http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/...s-benefit-cap/

[bwspetrie]

Sorry but I don't have much of a problem with this one.

Having lived next door to a single parent, who has never worked a day in her life and has just had child number 4, who makes no secret of the amount she gets every week and seeing the amount of money that is spent on luxuries, cigarettes and drink I think they should reduce the benefit of people who have more children while they are on state benefits rather than just capping the payments.

[Stepheninleeds]

I think there should be a limit, but it needs to be fair & balanced. It should take into account which part of the county you live in, family situation, disabilities, etc. This idea on Housing Benefit has never worked. They tried it before & all it did was force people to pay the extra rent themselves. I agree, paying a rent of over £1,000 s week is nacceptable, even in London, but most poorer people are not lazy or scroungers.

If we still lived in our last house we would have to pay some of the rent. I am disabled, my mother is. We are on benefits. We did not live there through choice, in many respects, we had no where else to live. Reason being, all private landlords around there charge the same rents.

[bwspetrie]

If the limit is set at the proposed £500 then I find that more than acceptable, it is a lot more than many people bring home who are working 40 or more hours a week.

[wobble1]

If the limit is set at the proposed £500 then I find that more than acceptable, it is a lot more than many people bring home who are working 40 or more hours a week.

I think the problem is that the minimum wage is so low rather than benefits being to high, also the complete destruction of social housing by Mrs T has sent HB costs soaring and this only lines the pockets of those already well off.
It is, and always has been, the injustice in society that creates all the ills we despise yet we still cling on to capitalism out of our own greed,selfishness and arrogance.

[Stepheninleeds]

£500 sounds like a lot, & it is, but there are regional variations, even city-wide. This is going to pus poor people in areas where rents are higher, into ghetto even slum housing & areas, because as ever, it will not be done properly.

[warkman]

£26,000 after tax is a damned sight more than the minimum wage! Its more than the average wage and the majority wages in this country of hard working taxpayers who have to pay for this.
No unemployment benefit should be higherv than the minimum whge and work should be carried out in the community to earn this benefit.
As for the great maggie, she allowed more poepl to own their own homes than any other premier and this is the right thing. As for Council/Social housing, there are many living in thses houses who when they first had the house could not afford anything else, which is what it should be, but they stay there and now they take uop the places which should be given to those who need them as they can afford a mortgage, but low cost rent means twoor three holsidays a year, a new car or two, all at the taxpayers expense.

[Stepheninleeds]

Yes, but one rule does not fit all. Many are losing their homes & cannot afford others, private ones & cannot be rehoused by the Council as they are in rent arrears & were evicted. Right now these people are not all getting a fortune in benefits. The current system has forced many to have to pay more rent than they can afford, this counts for working people. private landlords are putting rents up too, & fewer are prepared to take on those on benefits because of all these changes.

Many are abusing ths system & using it like a job, well an income. That is very true, & they need to be stopped, but not everyone is at an advantage on benefits. Most are worse off than they have ever been.

[wobble1]

£26,000 after tax is a damned sight more than the minimum wage! Its more than the average wage and the majority wages in this country of hard working taxpayers who have to pay for this.
No unemployment benefit should be higherv than the minimum whge and work should be carried out in the community to earn this benefit.
As for the great maggie, she allowed more poepl to own their own homes than any other premier and this is the right thing. As for Council/Social housing, there are many living in thses houses who when they first had the house could not afford anything else, which is what it should be, but they stay there and now they take uop the places which should be given to those who need them as they can afford a mortgage, but low cost rent means twoor three holsidays a year, a new car or two, all at the taxpayers expense.

The only thing I agree with you on is that unemployment benefits should be earned.