Osbourne Caps Total Amount Of Benefits

[jaynewcastle]

They're still letting people claim up to £26000 a year in benefits !!, how is that meant to encourage people into working ?.

As a civil servant of 16 years, I take home £15000 a year for working full-time. No wonder a lot of people would rather claim benefits instead

[Home_To_Roost]

The cap is still too bloody high! £500 a week for doing 3/8ths of f#ck all?!?! .... EASY LIFE ... where do I sign up? . The BBC has obviously covered the story. Here is one indebted commentator:

KAREN, LONDON

I think it's scandalous. I am a full-time working mum who earns over £44k and I have to work to pay for the mortgage.

The extra money from the government helps pay towards my childcare. I work hard and miss out so much of my children and I have to work, but those on benefit seem to reap all the rewards. Who is going to help me if I start to struggle to make ends meet?

Benefits Britain needs a swift kick up the ****

Edited October 4, 2010 by Home_To_Roost

[theonlywayisdown]

bold decision, a good move by the libcons.

The country can no longer afford to let people have a free ticket to an easy life at the expense of the taxpayers.

but agree with the cap being too high, it should be below 20k per family max. Non-working households shouldn't be able to live a normal life, they should be placed under a certain amount of strain such that someone in that household feels the urge to go out and find work. 26k outside of london is still too comfortable.

[Si1]

it IS equivalent of 26k MINUS income tax, please say it is... ????

[Lone_Twin]

Not sure there will be enough demand to employ these people.

Real demand is a function if production, if you want something from someone you are going to have to give them something in return.

Right now all that is being offered is a gun in the face.

Of course the otherside of this position is that we need to free people from the high costs imposed on them and the restrictions on providing goods and services.

[Kootenai Brown]

As much as I detest benefit scroungers, just one question Mr Osborne if I may.

WHERE ARE THE JOBS GOING TO COME FROM FOR THESE PEOPLE TO DO?

Target practice...

[Liquid Goldfish]

Apparently this move will save £300m.

Anyone else expecting it would be more?

Have we been overestimating the problem?

[ralphmalph]

it IS equivalent of 26k MINUS income tax, please say it is... ????

They have actually not announced the absolute figure all they have said is it will be limited to what people earn on an average salary and Osbourne has said that nobody should be better off on benefits than working.

So perhaps the press assumed the 500 per week because of the average salary is around there.

Edit: This is the exact text of what he said "He told the Conservative conference the cap would be set at the amount "the average family gets for going out to work"

Edited October 4, 2010 by ralphmalph

[Si1]

They have actually not announced the absolute figure all they have said is it will be limited to what people earn on an average salary and Osbourne has said that nobody should be better off on benefits than working.

So perhaps the press assumed the 500 per week because of the average salary is around there.

Edit: This is the exact text of what he said "He told the Conservative conference the cap would be set at the amount "the average family gets for going out to work"

minus tax and transport costs I hope!

thanks for the info

[ralphmalph]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/10/capping_benefits_and_families.html

The lovely Steph Flanders had the inside scoop.

Basically the saving is only going to be 300mill in 2013 because they are going to whack the benefits bunnies so hard between now and then this will just catch the last few remaining that escape the more immediate measures. Such as capping LHS from next april.

All good stuff.

[Democorruptcy]

Inflation.

Also, now the frog is in the water, the temperature will go up.

Those at the top will pay themselves more. Those on "average" wage benefits will see some benefit in that. Those working on below average wage will have living standards erased more.

[SHERWICK]

I think the socialists on here want the £500 per week raised to whatever a top banker gets.

[david m]

A cap of £26k/year is still utterly stupid. That's £35k/year ... way more than the national average wage of £26k (mean) and £21k (median).

Basically they are saying that the state will pay you £35k/year to do absolutely squat. At the same time a family with one earnng £44k/year is losing child benefit.

This hard encourages working ... it's does encourage those working to spend some time trying to work out how to become a benefits scrounger. I can hardly believe this is coming from the tories.

I think a benefit cap of 50% of the median wage (say £11k) would be a step in the right direction.

Edited October 4, 2010 by david m

[Fudge]

I think the socialists on here want the £500 per week raised to whatever a top banker gets.

The bankers have a lot in common with the welfare cheats, they are both parasites living off the wealth created by others.

Just that the welfare cheats are a lot cheaper to keep.

[Minos]

This Osbourne cap is a massive shake-up; in fact, I would describe it as a bomb under the current welfare state of play.

About 100,000 households receive benefits packages worth more than £30,899 before tax. About 50,000, the number that receive more than £500 a week, will be affected by this cap. And some households are about to lose about £70,000 in benefits a year (I do not kid).

This is a bomb. People just don't realise it yet because people don't realise how utterly insane the beenfits system has become through LHA and dependent benefits, particularly in London boroughs.

This will create some serious changes. Having more children will no longer net you any more money. You will have to live in accomodation that is affordable to the average person. People will have to move ... fundamentally, people will have to work if they have more than two children.

I have to hand it to them; I never thought they would have the balls to do something like this.

Osbourne's cap is fundamentally a "citizen's income" by the back door, an income of £26k pa and no more no matter how many children you have or where you live, unless you have disabilities. This why the LibDem ministers will have supported it.

Everything that has been anounced has led up to this ... caps on LHA, IDS rolling benefits into one package ... and it is a fair and just move.

Society is about to shift.

If only we could channel everyone's wages through the IR. They could make sure people got only what they were due. With the right tax credits, taxes and inflation, eventually everyone's income could converge. Well, the income of the little people, the bottom 99%. The future is red.

[South Lorne]

There was a labour bod on Radio 4 at lunchtime, she said the cap would adversely affect some of the poorest people in society.

If you get 25 grand a year in benefits you are not poor.

...net.....your edging up to high tax level status at this level ....it's all a joke delivered by people who don't understand simple arithmetic ...never mind basic economics.....politicians are the great uneducated as far as finance is concerned and advised by over paid senior civil servants who have no real productive work experience ....what a screwed up society.....

[tim123]

You'd be amazed at how many people are disabled nowadays.

I assume that when he says that the rule won't apply to the disabled he means "people who need extra income specifically because of their disability, not "everybody who can't get a job because of a disability".

tim

[tim123]

If there is going to be a limit, then that limit has to be set at the minimum wage level, nothing else makes any sense.

Not correct.

People who earn NMW and have a family get paid benefits. They aren't left to struggle along on the minimum wage

tim

[Fudge]

I assume that when he says that the rule won't apply to the disabled he means "people who need extra income specifically because of their disability, not "everybody who can't get a job because of a disability".

tim

The Employment & Support Allowance which has replaced disability benefit is becoming much tougher now.

Even people with genuine disabilities are being forced onto Job Seekers Allowance where they are being forced into work.

[awaytogo]

That's £26,000 a year, still too much.

Of course the few feckless breeders who have produced 12 children are really going to feel the pinch. (Better start maiming them now to get the disability benefit. )

It is to much, how can they say the benefit will be the same as a person in work, were's the incentive for them to go out to work, at the end of the day this goverment and the last know there are not the jobs for everyone in this country and they are just going to make those who are working work longer and pay more to keep the unemployed happy.

[hirop]

Basically they are saying that the state will pay you £35k/year to do absolutely squat. At the same time a family with one earnng £44k/year is losing child benefit.

This hard encourages working ... it's does encourage those working to spend some time trying to work out how to become a benefits scrounger. I can hardly believe this is coming from the tories.

Are they? It's not like there is a new form a doley goes to fill in to get there benefits knocked up to 26K. I presume it includes housing benefit? If it does not I might not feel quite so righteous about it. I'm pretty sure it is about saying if you currently get a shit load of cash because you have a shit load of kids, get used to not getting that anymore - because currently, if you are 2 doleys with no kids your getting about 8K + rent and that's it - sorry, don't know what each kid gets a feckless workshy family. It's the first step in the process, set the new benchmark to prevent the current damaging situation spiralling any further out of control. We don't yet know what measures are going to put in place for people who refuse to particpate in working for a living; the sum of the parts, come the end game, may be more striking than any single measure.

Edited October 4, 2010 by hirop

[jammo]

However how will it sit with the "human rights aspect of every child having it's own bedroom else it's overcrowding"...

It sits perfectly well with the "human right" of the parents to decide whether or not to get a bigger house before having another child. And if they do have another child, they can't have that much of a bad back either while we're at it

[erranta]

Are they? It's not like there is a new form a doley goes to fill in to get there benefits knocked up to 26K. I presume it includes housing benefit? If it does not I might not feel quite so righteous about it. I'm pretty sure it is about saying if you currently get a shit load of cash because you have a shit load of kids, get used to not getting that anymore - because currently, if you are 2 doleys with no kids your getting about 8K + rent and that's it - sorry, don't know what each kid gets a feckless workshy family. It's the first step in the process, set the new benchmark to prevent the current damaging situation spiralling any further out of control. We don't yet know what measures are going to put in place for people who refuse to particpate in working for a living; the sum of the parts, come the end game, may be more striking than any single measure.

Kids should be kept at skool, given tea then made to do a couple of hrs homework mon-fri.

Sat am bring back kids cinema.

Reward for good attendance record, behaviour, rising grade of work = new clothes+shoes, free summer holidays vouchers etc etc

Apprentice job training for those that don't want to continue to A levels/Uni

The savings from less agro on the streets in evenings, kids changing skool work practices

Bring back grammar skools

The money saved from less policing call outs and less criminal damage should subsidise alot of the cost

[Tired of Waiting]

minus tax and transport costs I hope!

thanks for the info

BBC news:

An estimated 50,000 households may be affected by the cap

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11463435

[hirop]

BBC news:

An estimated 50,000 households BTL landlords may be affected by the cap

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11463435

fixed it