Tory Benefit Cap

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/3-worried-single-mums-tell-9209388

Is this fair.

It appears quite a few will suffer a financial loss and possibly their homes.

Britain is one of the most prosperous places on the planet - no-one should be left to suffer because of poverty - and especially not children who have no influence over the sorry state in which they might find themselves.

Major wrote:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/3-worried-single-mums-tell-9209388

Is this fair.

It appears quite a few will suffer a financial loss and possibly their homes.

The problem here is that being a single mother is  a lifestyle choice for some of these people.   Where is the line drawn that people on benefits get more than people who work?   I've been a single mother, back in the 70s, when times were exceedingly hard, and I had to just get on with it.   It would be better to offer Government run nursery schemes to help get these women out to work.   The problem with being out of work for long periods is that you lose confidence and find it really hard to get out of the rut of not working.  

If you choose to bring children into the world purely as a means to live off benefits, then yes, it is fair.  But if, say, your husband/partner fucked off and left you holding the kids, then no, it's not fair.   But then life is rarely fair.  

So, what's the answer?   The country cannot go on and on paying for people to live on benefits their whole lives.  That's the reality.

Ziz wrote:Britain is one of the most prosperous places on the planet - no-one should be left to suffer because of poverty - and especially not children who have no influence over the sorry state in which they might find themselves.

I've been in a position of poverty myself at a time when there wasn't anywhere near the handouts available today. My child never went hungry, not once. I spent hours washing out terry nappies to save money, I walked everywhere and I didn't have a TV, or a Fridge, or a washing machine. In fact, I had fuck all. I lived very simply and ensured my money was managed. There were things we both had to do without, but nothing that would have killed us or been detrimental to our health. Sure, it was hard, but I didn't expect it to be anything else.

I knew people, had friends, who had more than one child who lived just as I did. We managed. It was hard, but we managed.

As for Britain being prosperous...well, not for most of us. Most people have to struggle by on a minimum wage. There shouldn't be people living on the streets, but there are. There shouldn't be pensioners dying of the cold each winter, but there are. The pot isn't bottomless.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ziz wrote:Britain is one of the most prosperous places on the planet - no-one should be left to suffer because of poverty - and especially not children who have no influence over the sorry state in which they might find themselves.

I've been in a position of poverty myself at a time when there wasn't anywhere near the handouts available today.    My child never went hungry, not once.  I spent hours washing out terry nappies to save money, I walked everywhere and  I didn't have a TV, or a Fridge, or  a washing machine.  In fact, I had fuck all.   I lived very simply and ensured my money was managed.   There were things we both had to do without, but nothing that would have killed us or been detrimental to our health.    Sure, it was hard, but I didn't expect it to be anything else.  

I knew people, had friends, who had more than one child who lived just as I did.  We managed. It was hard, but we managed.

As for Britain being prosperous...well, not for most of us.   Most people have to struggle by on a minimum wage.  There shouldn't be people living on the streets, but there are.  There shouldn't be pensioners dying of the cold each winter, but there are.   The pot isn't bottomless.

I agree with everything you say in the two posts above.

People shouldn't be going cold and hungry, maybe some of them are because the money that is available is being paid out to people who deliberately work the system.
Whereas a couple of generations ago most families lived under one roof, nowadays many families are splintered and if each one is drawing housing benefits and various other benefits the cost is magnified.

I also think what is classed as poverty now certainly would not have been in the 50's 60's and 70's....peoples ideas of doing without has changed considerably.

People should not get more on benefits than those who are working.

Tommy Monk wrote:People should not get more on benefits than those who are working.

No they definitely should not, and it's laughable when people suggest that anyone who thinks they should are jealous and envious...it stands to reason.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ziz wrote:Britain is one of the most prosperous places on the planet - no-one should be left to suffer because of poverty - and especially not children who have no influence over the sorry state in which they might find themselves.

I've been in a position of poverty myself at a time when there wasn't anywhere near the handouts available today.    My child never went hungry, not once.  I spent hours washing out terry nappies to save money, I walked everywhere and  I didn't have a TV, or a Fridge, or  a washing machine.  In fact, I had fuck all.   I lived very simply and ensured my money was managed.   There were things we both had to do without, but nothing that would have killed us or been detrimental to our health.    Sure, it was hard, but I didn't expect it to be anything else.  

I knew people, had friends, who had more than one child who lived just as I did.  We managed. It was hard, but we managed.

As for Britain being prosperous...well, not for most of us.   Most people have to struggle by on a minimum wage.  There shouldn't be people living on the streets, but there are.  There shouldn't be pensioners dying of the cold each winter, but there are.   The pot isn't bottomless.

If it is not possible in a rich country like Britain to house the homeless, feed the hungry or warm the aged then it's not possible at all - so let's just continue to accept the crumbs the controlling class give us without complaint - sorry I mentioned it.

What about people who find themselves suddenly struggling, after a break up with their partner, and they have children to look after? They have to find a job around hours which can ensure they can pick up their children from school or find one that pays enough to pay for childcare.
I'm in that position and I am not on benefits simply because I am living off savings. I'm trying to retrain myself to get a qualification so that I can get a job.
It isn't easy.
So what if my money runs out? Should I not be entitled to anything?

eddie wrote:What about people who find themselves suddenly struggling, after a break up with their partner, and they have children to look after? They have to find a job around hours which can ensure they can pick up their children from school or find one that pays enough to pay for childcare.
I'm in that position and I am not on benefits simply because I am living off savings. I'm trying to retrain myself to get a qualification so that I can get a job.
It isn't easy.
So what if my money runs out? Should I not be entitled to anything?

My standard advice to anyone, whatever their situation, is to apply for whatever entitlements they are due. I have watched gov't officials spend more on a single lunch than a member of the underclass gets in a week on benefits. In short, don't be mug.

eddie wrote:What about people who find themselves suddenly struggling, after a break up with their partner, and they have children to look after? They have to find a job around hours which can ensure they can pick up their children from school or find one that pays enough to pay for childcare.
I'm in that position and I am not on benefits simply because I am living off savings. I'm trying to retrain myself to get a qualification so that I can get a job.
It isn't easy.
So what if my money runs out? Should I not be entitled to anything?

My own mum was in that position Eddie, raising two young children single handed, so I know from experience how hard it is.
There were no benefits in those days, my mum  worked cleaning jobs to get us by, and we lived in the kind of poverty that would be unthinkable in this country in this day and age.

Thank God there is help now, and only a fool would deny people help, but there has to be a line drawn. If people are living in sought after areas on benefits....they should move to less affluent areas, just as someone who lost their job would have to.....it stands to reason.

The government should provide more free child care and training courses to enable women to get back into work....schools could open extra hours providing activities, money should be spent in constructive ways, it would benefit society in the long run.

If people have several children expecting others to financially raise them, some benefits should be paid out in food and heating vouchers rather than cash.

People who breed like rabbits and swan off into the sunset (usually men) and have no intention of ever working  because their kids turn out to be nice little earners for them (usually women) should be castrated or sterilised.....ooops, did I say that out loud.  

Ziz wrote:

eddie wrote:What about people who find themselves suddenly struggling, after a break up with their partner, and they have children to look after? They have to find a job around hours which can ensure they can pick up their children from school or find one that pays enough to pay for childcare.
I'm in that position and I am not on benefits simply because I am living off savings. I'm trying to retrain myself to get a qualification so that I can get a job.
It isn't easy.
So what if my money runs out? Should I not be entitled to anything?

My standard advice to anyone, whatever their situation, is to apply for whatever entitlements they are due. I have watched gov't officials spend more on a single lunch than a member of the underclass gets in a week on benefits. In short, don't be mug.

Yes I do keep getting told to seek help but...I like to do things my way.
I guess I should seek help at some point.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:What about people who find themselves suddenly struggling, after a break up with their partner, and they have children to look after? They have to find a job around hours which can ensure they can pick up their children from school or find one that pays enough to pay for childcare.
I'm in that position and I am not on benefits simply because I am living off savings. I'm trying to retrain myself to get a qualification so that I can get a job.
It isn't easy.
So what if my money runs out? Should I not be entitled to anything?

My own mum was in that position Eddie, raising two young children single handed, so I know from experience how hard it is.
There were no benefits in those days, my mum  worked cleaning jobs to get us by, and we lived in the kind of poverty that would be unthinkable in this country in this day and age.

Thank God there is help now, and only a fool would deny people help, but there has to be a line drawn. If people are living in sought after areas on benefits....they should move to less affluent areas, just as someone who lost their job would have to.....it stands to reason.

The government should provide more free child care and training courses to enable women to get back into work....schools could open extra hours providing activities, money should be spent in constructive ways, it would benefit society in the long run.

If people have several children expecting others to financially raise them, some benefits should be paid out in food and heating vouchers rather than cash.

People who breed like rabbits and swan off into the sunset (usually men) and have no intention of ever working  because their kids turn out to be nice little earners for them (usually women) should be castrated or sterilised.....ooops, did I say that out loud.  

That's what I'm saying, there are genuine people that aren't sitting around doing nothing and taking money from the government.

eddie wrote:

Ziz wrote:

My standard advice to anyone, whatever their situation, is to apply for whatever entitlements they are due. I have watched gov't officials spend more on a single lunch than a member of the underclass gets in a week on benefits. In short, don't be mug.

Yes I do keep getting told to seek help but...I like to do things my way.
I guess I should seek help at some point.

Having pride is a great thing to have Eddie, but I agree with Ziz.
Rather than use up your savings accept financial help whilst you need it....you and your OH have paid into a system in the past and that system is designed to help people....so find out what you are entitled to and accept it.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

My own mum was in that position Eddie, raising two young children single handed, so I know from experience how hard it is.
There were no benefits in those days, my mum  worked cleaning jobs to get us by, and we lived in the kind of poverty that would be unthinkable in this country in this day and age.

Thank God there is help now, and only a fool would deny people help, but there has to be a line drawn. If people are living in sought after areas on benefits....they should move to less affluent areas, just as someone who lost their job would have to.....it stands to reason.

The government should provide more free child care and training courses to enable women to get back into work....schools could open extra hours providing activities, money should be spent in constructive ways, it would benefit society in the long run.

If people have several children expecting others to financially raise them, some benefits should be paid out in food and heating vouchers rather than cash.

People who breed like rabbits and swan off into the sunset (usually men) and have no intention of ever working  because their kids turn out to be nice little earners for them (usually women) should be castrated or sterilised.....ooops, did I say that out loud.  

That's what I'm saying, there are genuine people that aren't sitting around doing nothing and taking money from the government.

I don't think anyone is singling out genuine people when they talk of benefit scroungers.

Yes it's what I keep being told....I am rather using up money I shouldn't be.
I have a couple of little ideas up my sleeve though to make money.

Very good so far, green for everyone.

I am for and against people scamming the benefit system.
I am 100% for looking after our own first but not the real hardened scammuz who have no intention of helping themselvez into work..

My lot would never have gone short, I would have stolen, scammed almost anything for our survival..

Those who suffer through marital breakdown should be helped and not suffer because of wicked governments.

Those tarts who forever have men making babies with them by not using birth control should get bugga all.

If a female claimz she must ID the daddy before the possibility of benefit help, daddy must be forced to provide instead of using drugz, having a decent car, 60 inch TV, boozing while mummy and baby struggle.
Mind you, the young girlz mummy was prob slapper as well, the young baby haz no chance in life at birth.


I have been in Redditch today on business, the amount of young girls with black babiz in pushchairz is unbelievable, I bet they are not married, the blokez have buggud off leaving them to look after themselvesz while they knock out more with the slappuz.
NOW, we have those luvlee pakistani people sha**ing our young girls, making babies and not supporting them.
NOW we have the Polez doing same, do not even think about telling me I am wrong.

I have mixed feelings as you can read, I do not wanna have to pay for slappuz and geezuz sha**ing around our island at my expense, DO YOU WANNA PAY??????????????????.

We MUST STOP giving our wealth to outsiduz.

TIN HAT TIME

No doubt you will be shouted down for bringing different races into this but.....it's rarer than hens teeth to see a young Asian girl with several children and no husband.
Yes the men spread themselves about....(often with underage white girls, but that's another matter) but the girls do not.

There are times when the level of debate descends beyond absurdity - this is one of them - so I for one will not be shouting anyone down.

The problem with policing people on benefits is that the police have to be paid, too. So you can easily find yourself spending more on benefits + "benefits police" than you otherwise would have spent if you tolerated a certain level of abuse of the system.

We've had a few states try a version of this -- testing welfare recipients for drug abuse, and denying benefits to drug abusers -- and it was a pretty resounding failure:

In 2011, Missouri adopted a law to require screening and testing for all TANF applicants, and the testing began in March 2013. In 2014, 446 of the state’s 38,970 applicants were tested. Just 48 tested positive.

The budgeted cost for that year’s testing program was $336,297. And, according to numbers provided to ThinkProgress by a Missouri Department of Social Services spokeswoman, the first three years of the program will likely cost the state more than $1.35 million, including start-up costs.

More examples: https://thinkprogress.org/what-7-states-discovered-after-spending-more-than-1-million-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-c346e0b4305d#.ovkhdsyot

The problem is a lot like illegal immigration -- citizens see people abusing benefits or living in the country illegally, they know it's going on and it's not right. But the logistics of the government actually doing something to really address it are daunting, and perhaps unrealistic and unaffordable.

I agree with benefit caps. As the article says, there's a huge amount being paid out in housing benefit, and this is helping to keep rents high. In turn, that will help to keep house prices high because of people buying to let. It's not right that someone can get so much more than many people who work full time, and not lift a finger to earn it.

eddie wrote:What about people who find themselves suddenly struggling, after a break up with their partner, and they have children to look after? They have to find a job around hours which can ensure they can pick up their children from school or find one that pays enough to pay for childcare.
I'm in that position and I am not on benefits simply because I am living off savings. I'm trying to retrain myself to get a qualification so that I can get a job.
It isn't easy.
So what if my money runs out? Should I not be entitled to anything?

The ex partner should be paying maintenance of some kind. If they have lost their job, that's a problem, but I suggest that women (and men) choose their partners more carefully and don't choose one who clearly has no intention of ever working, and then have children with them.

The lady in the article has five children. Well they didn't arrive on her doorstep - she chose to have them.

eddie wrote:

Ziz wrote:

My standard advice to anyone, whatever their situation, is to apply for whatever entitlements they are due. I have watched gov't officials spend more on a single lunch than a member of the underclass gets in a week on benefits. In short, don't be mug.

Yes I do keep getting told to seek help but...I like to do things my way.
I guess I should seek help at some point.

It depends on how much you have in savings. If you claim means tested benefits, you might not get them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ziz wrote:

My standard advice to anyone, whatever their situation, is to apply for whatever entitlements they are due. I have watched gov't officials spend more on a single lunch than a member of the underclass gets in a week on benefits. In short, don't be mug.

Yes I do keep getting told to seek help but...I like to do things my way.
I guess I should seek help at some point.

It depends on how much you have in savings. If you claim means tested benefits, you might not get them.

Yeah I heard that. It sucks.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It depends on how much you have in savings. If you claim means tested benefits, you might not get them.

Yeah I heard that. It sucks.

Simply move any excess savings to someone you can trust - that's what the middle class do.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It depends on how much you have in savings. If you claim means tested benefits, you might not get them.

Yeah I heard that. It sucks.

It does suck because it penalises those who bothered to save rather than spend all their dosh on beer or whatever. On the other hand, is it fair for the tax payers to pay out benefits for someone who has their own money?

Ziz wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yeah I heard that. It sucks.

Simply move any excess savings to someone you can trust - that's what the middle class do.

That would be dishonest, and would probably amount to benefit fraud.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Simply move any excess savings to someone you can trust - that's what the middle class do.

That would be dishonest, and would probably amount to benefit fraud.

It is neither - I am versed in these things. It's not dissimilar to tax avoidance rather than evasion - immoral perhaps, illegal no.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yeah I heard that. It sucks.

It does suck because it penalises those who bothered to save rather than spend all their dosh on beer or whatever. On the other hand, is it fair for the tax payers to pay out benefits for someone who has their own money?

No, but like you say it's skewed.
Many people live their lives or end up in older age relying on benefits because they have not had the discipline to plan ....they have probably had a more extravagant lifestyle than the people who have saved though.

Ziz wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That would be dishonest, and would probably amount to benefit fraud.

It is neither - I am versed in these things.

If someone transfers money in order to get benefits, they may well be found out and not get benefits.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:

It is neither - I am versed in these things.

If someone transfers money in order to get benefits, they may well be found out and not get benefits.

It's fiddling no matter which way you look at it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:

It is neither - I am versed in these things.

If someone transfers money in order to get benefits, they may well be found out and not get benefits.

You believe what you wish to believe.

Ziz wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If someone transfers money in order to get benefits, they may well be found out and not get benefits.

You believe what you wish to believe.

I don't think you should be encouraging anyone to do something so immoral, dishonest, and fraudulent.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If someone transfers money in order to get benefits, they may well be found out and not get benefits.

It's fiddling no matter which way you look at it.

It is not illegal to dispose of assets prior to claiming benefits - so it depends on how you define fiddling.

Ziz wrote:

Syl wrote:

It's fiddling no matter which way you look at it.

It is not illegal to dispose of assets prior to claiming benefits - so it depends on how you define fiddling.

Fiddling..cheating, cheating your fellow citizens, the ones who work hard for a living.
Also taking money away from others who will need it more than you do.

I won't be defrauding anyone guys! I get what Ziz is saying but I have a few ideas for a quick income.

Ziz wrote:

Syl wrote:

It's fiddling no matter which way you look at it.

It is not illegal to dispose of assets prior to claiming benefits - so it depends on how you define fiddling.

It's called deprivation of capital, and it may well affect your rights to benefits.

Money paid out in benefits is not never ending.

Eg...MIL is in hospital, she isn't ill but she is depriving someone who IS ill of a hospital bed....she is one of thousands.
Why?...because there is in this area an 8 MONTH WAITING LIST to provide her with the care she needs in a care facility that will suit her needs.

When people 'fiddle' their benefits they are depriving someone else the care they need.

Syl wrote:

Ziz wrote:

It is not illegal to dispose of assets prior to claiming benefits - so it depends on how you define fiddling.

Fiddling..cheating, cheating your fellow citizens, the ones who work hard for a living.
Also taking money away from others who will need it more than you do.

There is such a thing as "deliberate deprivation" which can impact upon a claim for subsidized residential care but as far as I know there is nothing iro other benefits.  If it's legal then it's legal - and there's no such concept as lawful fiddling, is there?

Ziz wrote:

Syl wrote:

Fiddling..cheating, cheating your fellow citizens, the ones who work hard for a living.
Also taking money away from others who will need it more than you do.

There is such a thing as "deliberate deprivation" which can impact upon a claim for subsidized residential care but as far as I know there is nothing iro other benefits.  If it's legal then it's legal - and there's no such concept as lawful fiddling, is there?

Well it would be deliberate wouldn't it? You've just advised eddie to transfer her savings so she can claim benefits.

http://about.universalcredit.service.gov.uk/kms/Pages/Deprivation_of_savings_and_other_capital.htm

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:

It is not illegal to dispose of assets prior to claiming benefits - so it depends on how you define fiddling.

It's called deprivation of capital, and it may well affect your rights to benefits.

I have done some checking, including the relevant regulations. You are right, the position has changed since I was involved in this area - fortunately for "my people" there are transitional arrangements which protect their position.

Regardless, I withdraw my advice to eddie, it is wrong.

I have no time for benefit scroungers and cheaters. They may try to justify themselves by saying how little they take out compared to corrupts bankers, politicians etc....and that's true. But it's the poor sod in the middle who works hard and honestly that gets squeezed from both ends.

Syl wrote:I have no time for benefit scroungers and cheaters. They may try to justify themselves by saying how little they take out compared to corrupts bankers, politicians etc....and that's true. But it's the more bastard in the middle who works hard and honestly that gets squeezed from both ends.

If you seek to swindle you indulge in crime - I view tax and benefit cheats like any other criminals.

Ziz wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's called deprivation of capital, and it may well affect your rights to benefits.

I have done some checking, including the relevant regulations. You are right, the position has changed since I was involved in this area - fortunately for "my people" there are transitional arrangements which protect their position.

Regardless, I withdraw my advice to eddie, it is wrong.

Thank you.

I think that for housing benefit or allowance, if you have more than £16,000 in savings, you can't get it, and if you have more than £6,000 it will be reduced. Not sure how much you can have before you're unable to claim income-based JSA or other benefits.

Ziz wrote:

Syl wrote:I have no time for benefit scroungers and cheaters. They may try to justify themselves by saying how little they take out compared to corrupts bankers, politicians etc....and that's true. But it's the more bastard in the middle who works hard and honestly that gets squeezed from both ends.

If you seek to swindle you indulge in crime - I view tax and benefit cheats like any other criminals.

Glad to see you have had a change of heart from 5 minutes ago.....well done Ziz.

Syl wrote:

Ziz wrote:

If you seek to swindle you indulge in crime - I view tax and benefit cheats like any other criminals.

Glad to see you have had a change of heart from 5 minutes ago.....well done Ziz.

Good try Syl - well, reasonable...

...but no change of heart - I did not advocate anything I knowingly knew to be criminal.

Ziz wrote:

Syl wrote:

Glad to see you have had a change of heart from 5 minutes ago.....well done Ziz.

Good try Syl - well, reasonable...

...but no change of heart - I did not advocate anything I knowingly knew to be criminal.

Yes Ziz....I understand.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:

I have done some checking, including the relevant regulations. You are right, the position has changed since I was involved in this area - fortunately for "my people" there are transitional arrangements which protect their position.

Regardless, I withdraw my advice to eddie, it is wrong.

Thank you.

I think that for housing benefit or allowance, if you have more than £16,000 in savings, you can't get it, and if you have more than £6,000 it will be reduced. Not sure how much you can have before you're unable to claim income-based JSA or other benefits.

That's is my understanding too.

Who needs a citizens advice bureau when you have Rags, Ziz and Syl Ltd!

I read up on a Mumsnet discussion board....that seems to be what they were saying too.