View Full Version : Benefit Cap
Finally some sense from the Government, the sooner this one gets through the better.
I am sick and tired of paying for the workshy
I agree capping it is a good idea, I think perhaps even 26k a year is too high a cap. I just wish the Torys would go after the super rich with the same zeal and alacrity.
The benefit cap shpould be placed at the minimum wage based on 40hrs a week as an absolute maximum.
They get 50% of whatever the higher earners make, how much more do you want?
The benefit cap shpould be placed at the minimum wage based on 40hrs a week as an absolute maximum.
They get 50% of whatever the higher earners make, how much more do you want?
I was merely commenting that the cap should be lower than 26k which I think is too much. Possibly between 18 and 21k if not lower. Maybe ever minimum wage as you said.
Minimum wage sounds good to me, as long as all benefit claimants get minimum wage along with the tax credits etc...
That way most benefit claimants would be substantially better off....
Some people do like to take extreme cases & deduce from that that all claimants are living a life of luxury at the tax payers expense... We're not!
weezer 316
23-Jan-12, 11:18
Nice to see we are all tories when it comes to money. I back the cap but it should be a soft cap, with it being broken in exceptional cases.
Stop moaning about the rich. Please. Some of you are like Glenn beck with his Nazi tourettes when it comes to the rich.
The whole benefits system needs modernising/changing.
The benefits system while helping the worse off also traps many, because once qualified they also get relief from a variety of other charges like Council Tax, prescription charges etc. Thus many ‘benefit in kind’ and so the incentive to return to work is very much reduced and in too many cases lost forever.
Child benefit is a particularly nice ‘earner’. I wouldn’t advocate stopping child benefit for existing children but I would suggest stopping child benefit for third and subsequent children nine months from now.
We also need to look at how we the taxpayers are subsidising the profits and the high wages of Executives in banking and the retail industries. Both those very profitable industries pay their lowest grade staff wages that have to be supplemented by the system of tax credit, a taxpayer funded benefit. Some of those funds will be clawed back through corporation tax but not enough to redress the balance.
I was once on a 16th Edition IEE wiring regs exam with a guy.
He did the exam in record time, when I finished he was outside the exam hall.
I said you must have sailed that mate you finished really fast.
He said "I have 4 kids mate, I am better off on the brew. I just ticked any box"
I was raging with the work shy layabout.
Something is obviously very wrong with the system when a trained electrician is better off on the social than working for a living.
Nice to see we are all tories when it comes to money. I back the cap but it should be a soft cap, with it being broken in exceptional cases.
Stop moaning about the rich. Please. Some of you are like Glenn beck with his Nazi tourettes when it comes to the rich.
It's not the super rich I have a problem with in general it's when the government takes a deferential attitude to them or when they attempt to use their wealth to unfairly influence politics.
I think most people are fiscally conservative in that no one wants to spend more than they earn in the long term or have long term outstanding debts. It's just a case of priorities and where people want to allocate that money.
Minimum wage sounds good to me, as long as all benefit claimants get minimum wage along with the tax credits etc...
That way most benefit claimants would be substantially better off....
Some people do like to take extreme cases & deduce from that that all claimants are living a life of luxury at the tax payers expense... We're not!
I like this one it makes more sense than all the other bias rubbish above.
Minimum wage sounds good to me, as long as all benefit claimants get minimum wage along with the tax credits etc...
That way most benefit claimants would be substantially better off....
Some people do like to take extreme cases & deduce from that that all claimants are living a life of luxury at the tax payers expense... We're not!
I don't think anyone's saying that benefit claimants are living a life of luxury. There are lots of people that are living on the minimum wage who struggle; they don't get additional relief from Council Tax, prescription charges, dental charges etc.
Any system has to be fair. Not only to those in receipt of benefit but to all those who are paying for it through their taxes.
You see an awful lot of folk on benefits who have Satellite TV, telephones both mobile and landline, computers, internet and a plentiful supply of alchohol and cigarettes. If you rely solely on benefits you should not be able to afford these luxuries.
You see an awful lot of folk on benefits who have Satellite TV, telephones both mobile and landline, computers, internet and a plentiful supply of alchohol and cigarettes. If you rely solely on benefits you should not be able to afford these luxuries.
This is just going in the same direction as the last thread on this subject. When will people like you UNDERSTAND it is up to each individual how they spent there money. Be it benefit money or a paid wage.
What would you have the Government do hand out vouchers for food and other essential items so your money is not wasted on people who would rather eat baked beans + the odd pint.
Maybe you can afford a nice Sunday roast.
I am fortunate enough not to be on benefits. But after spending many years handing over 60% of my income to the tax man I would like to think I could at least expect to feed my family if I where.
You see an awful lot of folk on benefits who have Satellite TV, telephones both mob ile and landline, computers, internet and a plentiful supply of alchohol and cigarettes. If you rely solely on benefits you should not be able to afford these luxuries.
I agree! No one who qualifies for benefit should be given any more than they'd earn if they had a job. And the level of benefit shouldn't depend on how many children in the family. After all, employers don't award a pay rise when their staff have another child!
I didnt realise the uK had a tax bracket in excess of 60%
My point is that the benefit system should not furnish people with enough money to allow them the luxuary of being able to afford any one of the items I mentioned.
Nick Noble
23-Jan-12, 12:45
Just to clarify some issues.
Most people on out of work benefits are not on them for life.
People in work actually receive huge amounts of benefits, 32% of benefits are paid to those on above average incomes.
The proposed cap will actually save about £270m the highest 50% of earners receive 28% of benefits, that is £30 BILLION see The Telegraph (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100043679/50-billion-of-welfare-spending-a-third-goes-to-people-on-above-average-incomes-do-we-really-need-this/) for an interesting piece about this.
Folks get satellite tv, hd tv's, broadband, phones etc at all stages of life, though usually in work and not on benefits because the companies like to run credit checks on people before supplying goods and services. Once you sign up then you are contractually bound to keep up payments, so being on benefits does not mean you can stop paying for these services.
In addition there is plenty of evidence that people with access to the internet can live cheaper and have better opportunities to get back into work faster and easier than those without.
The real object of the cap is to cut the level of housing benefit, and the only people that actually benefit from the high rents being paid by HB are in fact people that own property, the landlords! Most people only want a place to live, in London and the south east that are huge numbers of ex-council houses now being rented out through private landlords for hundreds of pounds a week. The tenant is simply paying what the market dictates to live where they do.
I didnt realise the uK had a tax bracket in excess of 60%
My point is that the benefit system should not furnish people with enough money to allow them the luxuary of being able to afford any one of the items I mentioned.
I think you miss read that part of my post or maybe your to young to have known those times lol.
after spending many years handing over 60% of my income to the tax man
Must be my age because I dont see what there is to misread from your post.
Can you please educate the youngsters among us on the 60% days of old?
weezer 316
23-Jan-12, 13:41
Just to clarify some issues.
Most people on out of work benefits are not on them for life.
People in work actually receive huge amounts of benefits, 32% of benefits are paid to those on above average incomes.
The proposed cap will actually save about £270m the highest 50% of earners receive 28% of benefits, that is £30 BILLION see The Telegraph (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100043679/50-billion-of-welfare-spending-a-third-goes-to-people-on-above-average-incomes-do-we-really-need-this/) for an interesting piece about this.
Folks get satellite tv, hd tv's, broadband, phones etc at all stages of life, though usually in work and not on benefits because the companies like to run credit checks on people before supplying goods and services. Once you sign up then you are contractually bound to keep up payments, so being on benefits does not mean you can stop paying for these services.
In addition there is plenty of evidence that people with access to the internet can live cheaper and have better opportunities to get back into work faster and easier than those without.
The real object of the cap is to cut the level of housing benefit, and the only people that actually benefit from the high rents being paid by HB are in fact people that own property, the landlords! Most people only want a place to live, in London and the south east that are huge numbers of ex-council houses now being rented out through private landlords for hundreds of pounds a week. The tenant is simply paying what the market dictates to live where they do.
Yeah good point Nick. It wont hit most, and probably very few in Scotland. Its the south east that will feel the squeeze. Some council rents in London are hundreds per week too. For once I feel kinda sorry for them tbh.
Folks get satellite tv, hd tv's, broadband, phones etc at all stages of life, though usually in work and not on benefits because the companies like to run credit checks on people before supplying goods and services. Once you sign up then you are contractually bound to keep up payments, so being on benefits does not mean you can stop paying for these services..
You may be contractually bound, but if you stop paying they stop supplying, simple really, as you say though the vast majority of folk are not on benefits forever and it is a stop gap between terms of employment, this I have absolutely no problem with.
It is the permenantly unemployed that I have a problem with.
So what happens to these people that are paying housing benefit to landlords?
If the landlord needs £500/ week for his property and the benefit will only pay £300 then the tenant either finds the difference somehow or ends up on the streets!
If the landlord can no longer finance the property due to this, he goes under also and another property crash ensues.
I didnt realise the uK had a tax bracket in excess of 60%
I did not say I paid in excess of 60%, I said I used to hand over (pay the tax man) 60%
Just for you my friend.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_structure/incometaxrates_1974to1990.pdf
Thanks for that, as I suspected you did not pay the tax man 60% of your earnings.
You may have paid 60% on a portion of your earnings however.
I note the 60% bracket was for earnings of between £8,500 to £10,000 in 1976
In comparison the average house cost £11,500 in 1976
That roughly equates to a wage of £120,000 today.
Which would leave you in the 50% bracket today.
Fair play Maccy, you made some really good cash back in the day!
achingale
23-Jan-12, 15:52
One lady I saw on the news needs £16,000 in benefit for rent for a year alone! This is incredible. No wonder the Government wants to crack down on it. As I tax payer I agree something needs to be done in reducing the cost of benefits to the nation and housing benefit should be capped in line with the cost of renting social housing.
If this is to cut the housing benefit bill by getting people to move to cheaper properties then I hope that they have fixed the system to allow people to do this....
For example... (all figures that follow are for example only to demonstrate the problem, can't remember the exact figures now)
Back in the early nighties when I was unemployed in Glasgow I was living in a flat at £400pm, housing benefit would only pay £350pm so I moved to another flat at £300pm only to be told after I had moved that they would only then pay £250pm. So even though I moved to a cheaper property & saving the tax payer money I was still £50pm short on my rent. So what was the point in moving to somewhere cheaper? None whatsoever. Unfortunately didn't discover this until after I moved as they refused point blank to tell you what they would be prepared to pay until after you had moved, signed the lease & applied for housing benefit (a process that could take as long as 2 to 3 months).
There shouldn't be a cap at all, just think of all the Families where they have 10-12 kids to feed and no job to go to! They are going to suffer greatly!!
They have already gone through the hardship of bringing so many children into the world, don't let us punish them just because they like having large Families!!
Give them what they need to live on plus a wee bit more for a few luxuries is what I say, after all, they deserve some luxuries after having all those kids don't they?!!!
C3............;)
housing benefit should be capped in line with the cost of renting social housing.
Agreed, but only if private rent charges are capped to be in line with that of social housing, or more social housing is built so that nobody gets trapped with little choice but to rent privately due to the lack of social housing.
I say put all the MPs on minimum wage by god things would change sharpish.
Agreed, but only if private rent charges are capped to be in line with that of social housing, or more social housing is built so that nobody gets trapped with little choice but to rent privately due to the lack of social housing.
Cue property market crash!!
The government have acknowledged that the lack of social housing is an issue, its how they fix it that will be interesting.
Stopping the right to buy with immediate effect would be a good start.
I say put all the MPs on minimum wage by god things would change sharpish.
indeed, we would have no government.
It would be mob rule.
You see an awful lot of folk on benefits who have Satellite TV, telephones both mobile and landline, computers, internet and a plentiful supply of alchohol and cigarettes. If you rely solely on benefits you should not be able to afford these luxuries. well said I totaly agree
rob murray
23-Jan-12, 16:40
You may be contractually bound, but if you stop paying they stop supplying, simple really, as you say though the vast majority of folk are not on benefits forever and it is a stop gap between terms of employment, this I have absolutely no problem with.
It is the permenantly unemployed that I have a problem with.
So what happens to these people that are paying housing benefit to landlords?
If the landlord needs £500/ week for his property and the benefit will only pay £300 then the tenant either finds the difference somehow or ends up on the streets!
If the landlord can no longer finance the property due to this, he goes under also and another property crash ensues.
the system actually encourages land lords to try it on and get as a high a rent as is possible ( local landlords.....as well as London based )with the cap landords either take whats on offer ( the new reduced rent benefit ) or retires the property from rental or kicks out the subsidised tenant ( if they can people have rights under the rent act ) and trys to get a tenant paying the real private market rate. As a previous poster notes this situation really applies in London / south east, not the rest of the country. This cap hits working people as well so what anyone with common sense can see is that large parts of London and the south east will be inhabited by the those who can afford it ( the rich ) The cap business affects low wage earners as well you know !!!!!
the system actually encourages land lords to try it on and get as a high a rent as is possible ( local landlords.....as well as London based )with the cap landords either take whats on offer ( the new reduced rent benefit ) or retires the property from rental or kicks out the subsidised tenant ( if they can people have rights under the rent act ) and trys to get a tenant paying the real private market rate. As a previous poster notes this situation really applies in London / south east, not the rest of the country. This cap hits working people as well so what anyone with common sense can see is that large parts of London and the south east will be inhabited by the those who can afford it ( the rich ) The cap business affects low wage earners as well you know !!!!!
As I said, many these properties will be heavily mortgaged. If they cannot get the rent required then they will default and cue property crash.
Mind you if I was renting out a property I wouldnt toush DHSS with an excrement covered stick.
annemarie482
23-Jan-12, 16:54
As I said, many these properties will be heavily mortgaged. If they cannot get the rent required then they will default and cue property crash.
Mind you if I was renting out a property I wouldnt toush DHSS with an excrement covered stick.
that is quite often why the private lets are so high priced, to avoid having to refuse DHSS ;)
most likely
I have no problem with that
rob murray
23-Jan-12, 17:12
Have you ever thought that "DHSS" ( actually no longer exists as a dept ) claimants wouldnt touch you with an excrement covered stick as well !! Get a grip, we are in the middle of a property price correction, if people have built property empires out of providing houses for people liable for housing benefits which will now be capped, then yes serves them right if they are over mortgaged, their properties will be re possed and sold on... do you not remeber Rachman ?
Cue property market crash!!
The government have acknowledged that the lack of social housing is an issue, its how they fix it that will be interesting.
Stopping the right to buy with immediate effect would be a good start.
Right to Buy. Why so unpopular? It makes no difference to the number of houses available. It just allows people who have probably paid enough rent to buy the place anyway, a way on to the housing ladder. (That was how it was designed anyway.)
Right to Buy. Why so unpopular? It makes no difference to the number of houses available. It just allows people who have probably paid enough rent to buy the place anyway, a way on to the housing ladder. (That was how it was designed anyway.)
And where do the younger generation go to start out in life?
And where do the younger generation go to start out in life?
It doesn't make any difference. There are still people living in the right to buys. The difference is the councils can use the money to invest in new stock. It's a great way to get rid of the old high maintainance stock.
It doesn't make any difference. There are still people living in the right to buys. The difference is the councils can use the money to invest in new stock. It's a great way to get rid of the old high maintainance stock.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but I havent noticed the council building any new houses of late (or ever)
As I said, many these properties will be heavily mortgaged. If they cannot get the rent required then they will default and cue property crash.
Mind you if I was renting out a property I wouldnt toush DHSS with an excrement covered stick.
So what would you do if you had a tenant who was working and then became unemployed? Kick them out? Anybody can become unemployed at any time.
So what would you do if you had a tenant who was working and then became unemployed? Kick them out? Anybody can become unemployed at any time.
For heavens sake no, I am not an animal.
I would wait until they could no longer pay the rent, then begin eviction procedings..
annemarie482
23-Jan-12, 17:48
It doesn't make any difference. There are still people living in the right to buys. The difference is the councils can use the money to invest in new stock. It's a great way to get rid of the old high maintainance stock.
thats exactly the problem though!
they weren't replaced, the money was pocketed or used elsewhere leaving a shortage of houses somewhat caused by the right to buy.
For heavens sake no, I am not an animal.
I would wait until they could no longer pay the rent, then begin eviction procedings..
But they could still be paying their rent through benefits. You would then be an unwilling benefit landlord.
thats exactly the problem though!
they weren't replaced, the money was pocketed or used elsewhere leaving a shortage of houses somewhat caused by the right to buy.
There was and is a shortage of houses. But it wasn't caused by right to buy.
It was caused by more demand for the same houses as the councils and housing Trusts/Associations didn't build enough new ones.
tonkatojo
23-Jan-12, 19:10
There was and is a shortage of houses. But it wasn't caused by right to buy.
It was caused by more demand for the same houses as the councils and housing Trusts/Associations didn't build enough new ones.
They probably thought what's the point, Thatchers legacy is to buy them cheap and they are forced to flog them.
I don't see a problem with renting for life, other countries do it just fine. The reality is this: The housing market crashed because a house is built so that people can live in it. Not so that real estate tycoons can buy and sell them like stocks and bonds pushing their value into the stratosphere... They stopped being homes, and started being the housing market.
weezer 316
23-Jan-12, 20:50
I don't see a problem with renting for life, other countries do it just fine. The reality is this: The housing market crashed because a house is built so that people can live in it. Not so that real estate tycoons can buy and sell them like stocks and bonds pushing their value into the stratosphere... They stopped being homes, and started being the housing market.
Well thats fine for you but not for me. You are at the mercy of the market in your old age, or even when your young. I wouldbnt want someone selling a house from under me cause they needed money and I am making sure I am never in that position. Your rent will also NEVER go down likely. Mine will stop one day. Cant get cheaper than that!
Some interesting figures here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185
"Family Life on Benefits"
Some interesting figures here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185
"Family Life on Benefits"
On a side note having seven children (in general even if you were employed) is an irresponsible thing to do in my opinion.
Nick Noble
01-Feb-12, 15:09
Some interesting figures here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185
"Family Life on Benefits"
Thanks for that link Phill, some interestings figures there.
My observations:
Even with seven children I cannot understand why "school books, uniforms & trips,
clothing, shows, white goods replacement" needs a budget of £4500
Halve that, to £45 per week, halve the fags and booze budget, and the family can easily manage on that income.
I have no problem with a cap on a family in that situation.
Very different however if we transplant the same family to an ex council flat in Streatham in London, still cut their fags and booze and "other" spending, and with rent at £350 per week they will need to be finding about £250 per week to continue to live in an area they may have lived in for many years.
It cannot be fair that two similar families in very different locations can be treated so very differently.
lisagrace
01-Feb-12, 15:48
I worked for the council (not in housing) but my understanding is that the council (Highland) have not built any houses since the late 70's, when they were building they borrowed money, in effect a mortgage and when the houses were sold under the right to buy scheme there was a deficit as the money gained from selling was far less than the money the council owed and is still a debt so maybe i'm being naive but no money was squandered. It was a good idea in theory but it was completely taken advantage off, we had people contacting our department after they had bought their house to complain they were not getting any property maintenance. Anyway there will be no more council houses built and the already diminshed stock will probably disappear eventually. People still need somewhere to live and I don't think housing benefit should be reduced as it is not going into the claiments pocket and there are massive variations in rent prices. Yes there are people who abuse the system but there are plenty of genuine people and the goverment has to be very careful that these families are not put at more of a disadvantage.
lisagrace
01-Feb-12, 15:54
Minimum wage sounds good to me, as long as all benefit claimants get minimum wage along with the tax credits etc...
That way most benefit claimants would be substantially better off....
Some people do like to take extreme cases & deduce from that that all claimants are living a life of luxury at the tax payers expense... We're not!
I'm not being cheeky but the definition of tax credits are that they are a form of tax relief for people that are working and paying taxes which in turn pay benefits, basically you have to be paying the tax to qualify. Surely there has to be SOME incentive for people to come off benefits and get a job
On a side note having seven children (in general even if you were employed) is an irresponsible thing to do in my opinion.Kind of agree, although case specific here, there are kids from 2 prior relationships. BUT, they have had another child whilst being unemployed and in a house that isn't big enough for the family, surely that's tantamount to cruelty?
If I got a dog and didn't have the space to home it nor the money to feed it I'd get locked up!
Thanks for that link Phill, some interestings figures there.
My observations:
Even with seven children I cannot understand why "school books, uniforms & trips,
clothing, shows, white goods replacement" needs a budget of £4500
Halve that, to £45 per week, halve the fags and booze budget, and the family can easily manage on that income.
I have no problem with a cap on a family in that situation.
Very different however if we transplant the same family to an ex council flat in Streatham in London, still cut their fags and booze and "other" spending, and with rent at £350 per week they will need to be finding about £250 per week to continue to live in an area they may have lived in for many years.
It cannot be fair that two similar families in very different locations can be treated so very differently.Very much a postcode lottery, I don't know really how to deal with that fairly.
However the general problem is that of the benefit trap, they get a higher household income than we do by several thousand. If they did work I would imagine initially they would be far worse off, so how to break the cycle?
Rather than look at the figures look at the mentality: "The market for my skills dried up ten years ago - there's a total lack of work in my area of expertise."
So why not try a different job market! After 10 years you can't really say you have any currency in your expertise.
(for those not reading the article this guy was an educational software writer, I am sure he could have easily converted the software skills to another field)
'We get the Sky Movies package because we're stuck in the house all week - otherwise we wouldn't have any entertainment.'
Shouldn't they be spending more time trying to change their circumstances!
At least get out of the house a bit more. Walking is still free.
The general mentality is one of waiting for something to come along and give them a better ride. An easy trap to fall into.
The ethos of the benefits system needs to change to A, stop people just sitting at home waiting for something to happen B, getting retraining in action quicker to break the cycle of longterm unemployed.
Nick Noble
01-Feb-12, 16:23
Quite why the government have not been shouting this from the rooftops I don't know, but personally I think this makes the whole benefits cap far more acceptable:
Taken from www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/household- (http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/household-)benefit-cap-wr2011-ia.pdf
4. Households entitled to Working Tax Credit will be exempt from the cap. This policy is
intended to encourage claimants to move into work or increase the hours they work; it will
increase the incentive for people to find employment, because once they are in receipt of
WTC their benefits will no longer be subject to the cap, furthermore they will also gain
from earning once they enter work. Conversely, were recipients of Working Tax Credit to
be among those affected by the cap, this would reduce incentives to work.
5. Households with a claimant, partner or child receiving Disability Living Allowance or
Constant Attendance Allowance will also be excluded from the cap, in recognition of the
additional financial care and mobility needs a disability can bring. This exemption will
also apply to households which include someone in receipt of Personal Independence
Payment and Attendance Allowance. War widows and war widowers have also been
excluded from the cap. This is because the Government believes that to support the
Armed Forces and their families, it will at times be necessary to offer special treatment in
order to recognise their sacrifices 2 .
Those two exemptions together with the promised discretionary relief for those newly unemployed seems to target exactly who it should. The long term feckless unemployed who have made large family and unemployment a lifestyle choice.
And Chris Grayling has just announced £80m to local authorities to provide transitional relief in the first year, and a nine month delay on imposition of the cap for the newly unemployed.
I can sign up to that.
On a side note I find tax credits favour people with children and no one else.
Nick Noble
01-Feb-12, 17:15
On a side note I find tax credits favour people with children and no one else.
Not so, working tax credit is available to people over 25 with no children, or over 16 and have a disability.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/people-advise-others/entitlement-tables/work-no-child.htm
Strangely child tax credit is only payable to people with children.
Not so, working tax credit is available to people over 25 with no children, or over 16 and have a disability.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/people-advise-others/entitlement-tables/work-no-child.htm
Strangely child tax credit is only payable to people with children.
Sorry I should have said that there is working tax credit but that the threshold for it is so low that it is basically useless and negligable - also single people are penalised again - compared to child tax credit.
lisagrace
01-Feb-12, 22:33
but a single person has a lot less expenditure i.e. only has to feed and clothe themselves etc and they get a council tax discount. I'm not disagreeing with you totally as people choose to have children but it is society that has made people totally dependant and expectant of benefits. Also its becoming more and more that the average wage is not rising in comparison with the cost of living, years ago one wage (the man's lol) was enough to get by on and the women could stay at home to raise their children. I've recently given up work as I have two children and after I paid the childminder I was taking home about £150 a month so you can see why people get stuck in a trap, we only get £48 a month tax credits. My husband works 40+ hours a week and not on a low income but we are struggling without my wage. I think benefits should stay about the same but they should come down hard on people reluctant to work and raise the wages so that people have an incentive to work
How true Beatbug. A random look through Facebook, all the 17 years old with their houses, baby, mobile phones, the whole works and have never ever worked. Fair comment there is no work but why should they live in the lap of luxury whilst pensioners are struggling and have worked all their days? Another point Government paying mortgages to splitty up couples. When mortgage paid off and client decides to sell their 4 bedroom, ensuite villa with only themselves living in it, or they die and the family inherits the proceeds, why does the government not claw back this money? It is beyond me to understand the workings of the government.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.