Pay freeze for millions until 2020?

[Neil_F]

Why should innocent young children have to pay for the "thoughtlessness" of their parents in having a large family or the sheer bad luck of their parents losing their jobs,or indeed not having jobs, in a time of economic recession and not being able to continue to pay their mortgage or rent and thus being made homeless?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe it is government policy to kick people out on the street. I thought the idea that large families would be moved to a less expensive area?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe it is government policy to kick people out on the street. I thought the idea that large families would be moved to a less expensive area?

We'll have to wait and see though I'm sure Islington would make a good test case.:winking:

 

[canveyshrimper]

Why should innocent young children have to pay for the "thoughtlessness" of their parents in having a large family or the sheer bad luck of their parents losing their jobs,or indeed not having jobs, in a time of economic recession and not being able to continue to pay their mortgage or rent and thus being made homeless?

...or never having done a days work in all their feckless lives.

 

[Cricko]

Why should innocent young children have to pay for the "thoughtlessness" of their parents in having a large family or the sheer bad luck of their parents losing their jobs,or indeed not having jobs, in a time of economic recession and not being able to continue to pay their mortgage or rent and thus being made homeless?

Now I know it is the children who would suffer,but there are a large number of parents out there who have more children just so they can get more benefits. I have a friend who lives in Bolton who told me last year it is common practice amongst a lot of parents in his area to tell their daughters, that if they want to get there own free accommodation and benefits to get themselves pregnant and get on the housing list. They are not even encouraged to stay with the father of the child. I know a local girl down this way who is 31 and has 3 kids by 3 different partners.. she has been told she will have to go and find work as her youngest is now approaching a certain age...what has she done since to make sure she keeps her current lifestyle...gone and got pregnant again, which will mean more benefits and probably a new bigger free home.

 

[C'mon you Shrimpers]

Why should I subsidise two parents who don't work to have loads of kids?

I live in an area of London that will be affected by the cap. I live in a two bedroom flat with my girlfriend (jointly owned with mortgage) but we do not have any children. We could stay where we are with one, but the property is too small for two children. We would face a choice at that point: don't have a second child or move somewhere else out of town where we could afford a suitable property.

Why should two parents who don't work be protected from the economic reality above? How is it fair that I would have to move out but those on benefits would get moved to a bigger house in the borough? I just don't get how that is fair.

The moral of the story: don't have kids you can't afford to pay for.

Agree entirely Neil. They made a decision to have children and primarily it should be their responsibility not the state's to provide for them. The figures on the BBC Website yesterday quite shocked me. If you are claiming in London with a £400 Housing benfit and have 10 children your NET income from the state is wait for it is.......

£1,177 per week. If you have 2 children it is £678.89. It's actually quite an insult to the millions of hard working people working for a low wage. Why should they bother. The changes are long long overdue.

I doubt if even Barna Blue could defend these figures. I bet they don't get as much in that in Spain.

 

[osymandus]

Agree entirely Neil. They made a decision to have children and primarily it should be their responsibility not the state's to provide for them. The figures on the BBC Website yesterday quite shocked me. If you are claiming in London with a £400 Housing benfit and have 10 children your NET income from the state is wait for it is.......

£1,177 per week. If you have 2 children it is £678.89. It's actually quite an insult to the millions of hard working people working for a low wage. Why should they bother. The changes are long long overdue.

I doubt if even Barna Blue could defend these figures. I bet they don't get as much in that in Spain.

The thing of course is its not defending these numbers as those on benefits don;t really change the value of products or services , it's why has the benefits had to raise to the values of these products , services housing etc ?

Why are landlords charging so much for local housing ? These figures are the product of our problem they don't need solving what makes them does .

 

[C'mon you Shrimpers]

The thing of course is its not defending these numbers as those on benefits don;t really change the value of products or services , it's why has the benefits had to raise to the values of these products , services housing etc ?

Why are landlords charging so much for local housing ? These figures are the product of our problem they don't need solving what makes them does .

Ozy you're wrong as ever. Nothing to do with rents, although one possible effect of all this might be to see rents come down as the state hopefully will refuse to pay top dollar for shoddy accomodation. The question is should someone who does not work get more than someone who doesn't. Simple as that. These payments are unsustainable and do little but encourage the feckless. I know someone who talked to someone who had 11 children last week and she was moaning she only had £900 to feed her family and could not afford clothes and shoes for them. She had a bad back of course but it did not stop her pushing out a sprog she could not afford every copuple of years. Pathetic. I'm fed up paying for these people as are millions of others. The Bishops should learn to live in the real world.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The thing of course is its not defending these numbers as those on benefits don;t really change the value of products or services , it's why has the benefits had to raise to the values of these products , services housing etc ?

Why are landlords charging so much for local housing ? These figures are the product of our problem they don't need solving what makes them does .

Because the government is willing to pay it?

 

[Neil_F]

. If you are claiming in London with a £400 Housing benfit and have 10 children your NET income from the state is wait for it is.......

£1,177 per week. If you have 2 children it is £678.89. It's actually quite an insult to the millions of hard working people working for a low wage. Why should they bother. The changes are long long overdue.

For completeness, £1,177 net per week is the equivalent of a single annual gross salary of £94,129 or £41,529 gross each for a working couple.

£678 net per week is the equivalent of an annual gross salary of £49,471 or £22,483 each for a working couple.

I haven't included child benefit in the above. Would a couple with two kids and one earner of £49k (who wouldn't get child benefit under the new proposal) be able to live in central London?

 

[osymandus]

Ozy you're wrong as ever. Nothing to do with rents, although one possible effect of all this might be to see rents come down as the state hopefully will refuse to pay top dollar for shoddy accomodation. The question is should someone who does not work get more than someone who doesn't. Simple as that. These payments are unsustainable and do little but encourage the feckless. I know someone who talked to someone who had 11 children last week and she was moaning she only had £900 to feed her family and could not afford clothes and shoes for them. She had a bad back of course but it did not stop her pushing out a sprog she could not afford every copuple of years. Pathetic. I'm fed up paying for these people as are millions of others. The Bishops should learn to live in the real world.

You've misread what what I've written I didn't say rents i said why are charging so much ? It's a multitude of reasons beyond this benefits are supposed to be a base line reflection of the funds needed to live in your society .

I heard someone who who know, really ? Sorry but this add's to the problem that's what we call a rumour and even if you heard 2nd/ 3rd hand you dont know the circumstances . I agree with you on the Bishops (the irony of the COE and Catholic bishops is not lost ). I'm sorry but there is no real world never has been , benefits needs to be sorted I agree , but not with generalised half arsed solutions . This report from 2010 demonstrates that benefit fraud is 15 x less then tax evasion http://citywire.co.uk/money/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274 .

Uncollected tax of 2009-2010 is £35 Billion (figures from HMRC ) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15001965 .

Collect even half of this you have more then enough money to easierly refund and sort out the system .

 

[osymandus]

Because the government is willing to pay it?

ALso lack of local council housing so have to go to the private sector ? So pay or have homeless people .

 

[Neil_F]

This report from 2010 demonstrates that benefit fraud is 15 x less then tax evasion http://citywire.co.uk/money/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274 .

Uncollected tax of 2009-2010 is £35 Billion (figures from HMRC ) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15001965 .

Collect even half of this you have more then enough money to easierly refund and sort out the system .

Uncollected tax should be collected. Hopefully Redknapp and Mandiric will reduce that figure in the next couple of weeks.

The benefit reforms are not about fraud though; these people are legally entitled to the amounts claimed and I personally don't think that is fair. Even if £15bn of uncollected tax is recovered (which it never will be) it doesn't mean that the benefit cap is no longer required.

 

[osymandus]

Uncollected tax should be collected. Hopefully Redknapp and Mandiric will reduce that figure in the next couple of weeks.

The benefit reforms are not about fraud though; these people are legally entitled to the amounts claimed and I personally don't think that is fair. Even if £15bn of uncollected tax is recovered (which it never will be) it doesn't mean that the benefit cap is no longer required.

Again not what Im saying , i agree a limit should be in place , but the systems exaggerated figures are down to been controlled by the market forces they depend on not the subsidised housing or other services that were once removed from their market forces (care homes for any example of how and how some areas are not profit makers ), we are trying to isolate this as a problem that is not linked to other factors , which is madness , who do people get offered low wages ? Why are we lacking skills in education and work ? why the desire to make some sections of society reliant on these benefits ?

There are so many factors in this that figures alone are nothing more then a very minor sign not a solution.

 

[Neil_F]

So you are in favour of a cap but you can't say what that limit should be. If I understand you correctly, it is impossible to know what the limit should be, so you are only notionally in favour of a benefit cap?

 

[osymandus]

So you are in favour of a cap but you can't say what that limit should be. If I understand you correctly, it is impossible to know what the limit should be, so you are only notionally in favour of a benefit cap?

It's not impossible , its just dependant on factors I'm not fully aware of . We're currently in the middle of a rescission so a cap now would have to be changeable or reliant on the CRI (is that the consumer rate index ?) or similar measurement.
Also defining factors of quality of life , will energy prices change in the future ? Would it be better to build more council housing , which then eats into the housing market ? These are all factors in a more holistic approach .

Being also part of the unemployed it needs to be redone to better match people to jobs their actually fit and suited for not just pushing everyone into any job that comes along , which in the longer term (comes from actually job centre workers ) generates more tax and revenue . Maybe even a serious look at the long term viability of jobs created as another factor , McDonalds and Asda announced both to created 1000's of more jobs . But both are based on consumers , being employed and having the money to buy their products.

 

[Hotman]

It's not impossible , its just dependant on factors I'm not fully aware of . We're currently in the middle of a rescission so a cap now would have to be changeable or reliant on the CRA (is that the consumer rate index ?) or similar measurement.

****ing hell, you can't even spell abbreviations correctly.

Also defining factors of quality of life , will energy prices change in the future ? Would it be better to build more council housing , which then eats into the housing market ? These are all factors in a more holistic approach .

Being also part of the unemployed it needs to be redone to better match people to jobs their actually fit and suited for not just pushing everyone into any job that comes along , which in the longer term (comes from actually job centre workers ) generates more tax and revenue . Maybe even a serious look at the long term viability of jobs created as another factor , McDonalds and Asda announced both to created 1000's of more jobs . But both are based on consumers , being employed and having the money to buy their products.

hope you enjoy being unemployed you daft ****

 

[osymandus]

****ing hell, you can't even spell abbreviations correctly.

hope you enjoy being unemployed you daft ****

Your aware this just makes you look a ****wit right ? Nothing to do with my points a small error and an assumption (I didnt say I was unemployed )

Fine eye for detail there , no wonder tax goes uncollected or miscalculated :P

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Why are landlords charging so much for local housing ? These figures are the product of our problem they don't need solving what makes them does .

Agreed.This is the root of the problem.

 

[Smudger]

Oh they care alright...about themselves and their rich friends and everyone else can go hang.

Interesting view - are you basing that on Conservative governments past or this one. If it's the former then that can't be right. I'd take Cameron and co in preference to the previous ****-weak Labour government that allowed extremism to thrive under it's nose, let immigration run amock and created spurious and wholly unnecessary public sector jobs with a view to creating more Labour dependent voters. Add to that the complete and utter balls up your mate Gordon Brown made of controlling the banking industry and I'd have to say you could give me the current set of Tarquins ANY day of the week in preference to another Labour government. Interested to know your thoughts on this one MK....

 

[MK Shrimper]

Interesting view - are you basing that on Conservative governments past or this one. If it's the former then that can't be right. I'd take Cameron and co in preference to the previous ****-weak Labour government that allowed extremism to thrive under it's nose, let immigration run amock and created spurious and wholly unnecessary public sector jobs with a view to creating more Labour dependent voters. Add to that the complete and utter balls up your mate Gordon Brown made of controlling the banking industry and I'd have to say you could give me the current set of Tarquins ANY day of the week in preference to another Labour government. Interested to know your thoughts on this one MK....

I base it on the fact that I never trust a Tory government. My old man instilled in me a healthy loathing for these public school boys at an early age, and living through the 80's and 90's that loathing was never tempered.

I'm not a Labour voter anymore, they're also right of centre - in fact no one speaks for me and I'm not going to bother to vote anymore - what a sad, sad state British politics is in.