Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 3:14 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

Has it not occured to you that most people who work hand over a considerable number of £50 notes to their landlord or mortgage provider each month?

And has it not occured to you that these people may have worked just as hard and handed over a number of £50 notes to their landlord or mortgage provider before they became redundant or ill?

[DaveO]

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 3:37 pm  

Diavolo Rosso wrote:

Link doesn't work?

To turn the argument around, why should the State pay more in welfare than people who go out and earn it (on average)?

The state needs to pay out welfare that is enough for people to be housed, not starve and provide something more than a hand to mouth existence i.e. we don't want a return to the work house do we?

If they don't do that just because there are people in work who earn less doesn't mean the amount of benefit paid is too high. It means wages are too low.

If the amount required prevent a return to the workhouse is more then the "average wage" then:

1. Those on average wages will need to claim benefits themselves or they clearly won't have enough to live on.
2. The "average wage" is not enough meet the cost of living in this country or at least in certain parts of it.
3. The state (i.e. the taxpayer) is subsidising a low wage economy.

I must admit to being particularly unsympathetic to someone who claims they can't survive on £500 per week of welfare, given that if I was out of work as a single male I'd be entitled to £75pw (I just worked it out on the Gov UK website) of welfare.

The biggest cost of the welfare state (excluding state pensions) is housing benefit. Most of the people who get this amount of money never see it. It goes straight to the landlord.

The fact more welfare is spent on those in work to top up low wages than the unemployed goes to show we ARE subsidising a low wage economy.

Do you think landlords are going to reduce rents because their tenants have suddenly had their benefits capped?

A cap on benefit is a crude method designed to appeal to the Daily Mail brigade and solves nothing. It can even cost the state money elsewhere as councils have to start housing people thrown out of private accommodation and it can mean people who were working but in receipt of benefit become unemployed as they can't live close enough to work anymore. I am sure health issues arise as people skimp on heating their homes and even food costing the NHS more.

Drive people into poverty and that is what you get.

The stance taken by government attacks the problem from the wrong end. Reduce the cost of living (rents mainly) and/or do things like have employers pay the living wage and the problem of a large benefit bill simply goes away.

[DaveO]

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 3:48 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

You really should sort your own spelling and grammar, before calling other people out as thick.

That was unusually bad grammar on my part. I am sure you got the point though.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:13 pm  

DaveO wrote:

That was unusually bad grammar on my part. I am sure you got the point though.

Yes, we both know I did.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:29 pm  

DaveO wrote: The state needs to pay out welfare that is enough for people to be housed, not starve and provide something more than a hand to mouth existence i.e. we don't want a return to the work house do we? Does it really need to? Welfare should be (and was originally designed as) a safety net to help people who had hit rock bottom. It should not be a lifestyle choice. If they don't do that just because there are people in work who earn less doesn't mean the amount of benefit paid is too high. It means wages are too low. Wages are, generally speaking, set by market supply and demand, both of labour and goods. A 'false' increase in wages would probably put too much money into the economy and fuel inflation. In order to curtail it, interest rates would have to rise substantially, people would not be able to afford their mortgages, and we know the rest... The biggest cost of the welfare state (excluding state pensions) is housing benefit. Most of the people who get this amount of money never see it. It goes straight to the landlord. Just because they never see it, does not mean that we can discount it as a financial benefit they receive. I pay around £200 a month to the Student Loans Company. I never see that money in my pay packet, other than as a line in my pay advice telling me the money has been paid to the SLC, but it is still classed as part of my salary. I cannot then approach my employer and argue they did not pay me that £200 because it was paid to someone else on my behalf. Which, I think, is the argument you are trying to make. Do you think landlords are going to reduce rents because their tenants have suddenly had their benefits capped? Ironically, the market may force them to, if no-one is allowed to claim more than £500 a week. A cap on benefit is a crude method designed to appeal to the Daily Mail brigade and solves nothing. Perhaps. But is also enjoys huge public support. See below: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/publ ... rk-or-move The stance taken by government attacks the problem from the wrong end. Reduce the cost of living (rents mainly) and/or do things like have employers pay the living wage and the problem of a large benefit bill simply goes away. I would love to try and reduce the cost of living, particularly housing. I am looking at buying a house at the moment. Prices in some areas are artificially high because many properties have been snapped up by buy-to-let investors, meaning there are no reasonably priced properties for people who actually want to put down roots in the area. Ironically, the flip side of this coin is that the huge oversupply of rental properties on the market (again, in some areas) has resulted in landlords reducing rent to compete to get tenants.

DaveO wrote: The state needs to pay out welfare that is enough for people to be housed, not starve and provide something more than a hand to mouth existence i.e. we don't want a return to the work house do we? Does it really need to? Welfare should be (and was originally designed as) a safety net to help people who had hit rock bottom. It should not be a lifestyle choice. If they don't do that just because there are people in work who earn less doesn't mean the amount of benefit paid is too high. It means wages are too low. Wages are, generally speaking, set by market supply and demand, both of labour and goods. A 'false' increase in wages would probably put too much money into the economy and fuel inflation. In order to curtail it, interest rates would have to rise substantially, people would not be able to afford their mortgages, and we know the rest... The biggest cost of the welfare state (excluding state pensions) is housing benefit. Most of the people who get this amount of money never see it. It goes straight to the landlord. Just because they never see it, does not mean that we can discount it as a financial benefit they receive. I pay around £200 a month to the Student Loans Company. I never see that money in my pay packet, other than as a line in my pay advice telling me the money has been paid to the SLC, but it is still classed as part of my salary. I cannot then approach my employer and argue they did not pay me that £200 because it was paid to someone else on my behalf. Which, I think, is the argument you are trying to make. Do you think landlords are going to reduce rents because their tenants have suddenly had their benefits capped? Ironically, the market may force them to, if no-one is allowed to claim more than £500 a week. A cap on benefit is a crude method designed to appeal to the Daily Mail brigade and solves nothing. Perhaps. But is also enjoys huge public support. See below: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/publ ... rk-or-move The stance taken by government attacks the problem from the wrong end. Reduce the cost of living (rents mainly) and/or do things like have employers pay the living wage and the problem of a large benefit bill simply goes away. I would love to try and reduce the cost of living, particularly housing. I am looking at buying a house at the moment. Prices in some areas are artificially high because many properties have been snapped up by buy-to-let investors, meaning there are no reasonably priced properties for people who actually want to put down roots in the area. Ironically, the flip side of this coin is that the huge oversupply of rental properties on the market (again, in some areas) has resulted in landlords reducing rent to compete to get tenants.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:02 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

Does it really need to? Welfare should be (and was originally designed as) a safety net to help people who had hit rock bottom. It should not be a lifestyle choice.

"Lifestyle choice"?

Apart from in the vivid imaginations of frothing Dally Wail and Torygraqph readers, how many benefit claimants do you really think view welfare dependency as a "lifestyle choice"?

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:02 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

"Lifestyle choice"?

Apart from in the vivid imaginations of frothing Dally Wail and Torygraqph readers, how many benefit claimants do you really think view welfare dependency as a "lifestyle choice"?

In an experience dealing with them every day, I'd say 30%+

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:23 pm  

Standee wrote:

In an experience dealing with them every day, I'd say 30%+

Or 'under two thirds'.

By gum, even assuming you're correct, that doesn't bear out the government lies.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:31 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Or 'under two thirds'.

By gum, even assuming you're correct, that doesn't bear out the government lies.

It's still a substantial enough number, in my opinion, and needs sorting out.

There are people posting here on RLFans that claim to be unfit for work that just choose not to, we both know that.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:40 pm  

Standee wrote:

There are people posting here on RLFans that claim to be unfit for work that just choose not to, we both know that.

Do you have anything to back up that wild assertion?