A very simple question. | Discuss

Welcome to the Property Forum where we can share our knowledge & experiences together to become better at what we do.

 Forum Terms & Conditions


Page not looking right? Please CLICK HERE to RELOAD

Enlarge/Change font size here

A A A

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —





 

— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Related Related Topics sp_TopicIcon
A very simple question.
23/01/2012
7:40 am
Sal
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 14
Member Since:
15/12/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Is it fair that families on benefit should earn more than £26,000 when working families don't. Who in their right mind would agree that to support someone sex life and ambitions to spawn loads of children and make others pay for ist, Can that be right?

I want a Jag but no one gives me the money for it, so why should I pay for everyone else's kids?Yell

23/01/2012
9:16 am
Paul Routledge
Admin
Forum Posts: 3415
Member Since:
20/05/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi Sally,

A good question that deserves a straight answer "NO" When you sit back and look at the world as a whole when did those that do agree to carry those that don't.

I am not talking about those that do carrying those that cant.  I am talking about carrying the dont's and of course In that I mean work and contribute to our society. Where did we go so wrong that we forgot how to show our kids that being responsible and using contraception until they can afford the families they produce will not be rewarded with a cash shower.

So another question for the General public is who made these policy's in the first place, who passed the laws to implement them into legislation and who in the employed ranks of this country got to vote to say they would pay for them, "Not me"

The question being asked today in Parliament is "Is it fair on those people to cap them at £26,000".  when the real question of these people who have had a free ride for years at our expense some getting £50,000+ a year should be who in Gods (of every religion) name passed a law that gave them this free ride in the first place? Confused

23/01/2012
10:26 am
Cedric
Golders Green
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 476
Member Since:
15/12/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I was up early this morning and saw Ian Duncan-Smith interviewed by Eamonn Holmes on Sky News about this topic.

It is abundantly clear that it is not correct for families to gain benefits in excess of what an upright and conscientious working family can earn.  I can understand why someone who is getting up at 5am for a morning shift at Ford Dagenham and then finding a family who can be sitting at home watching Jeremy Paxman and Loose Women all day is earning more in benefits than they can possibly achieve in a working week is annoyed.  Where is the logic in that ?

I know that £26000 does not seem a great deal of money for people of my home here in London, but I guess if you are living somewhere like Accrington that would be a more manageable amount to receive.

There is quite a heated discussion that the people who will be damaged by these reforms will be the children in the family but in my view they will still all get Sky in their bedrooms and the obligatory dx's and laptops that seem to be a prerequisite of being a child of this age !!!

 

What I have never been able to understand why it is easier not to work in monetary terms than it is to work if you are a family who knows how to play the system.  It makes me so angry that there are so many working families who are struggling to achieve any sort of meaningful life whilst others get such an easy ride !!!!

23/01/2012
2:53 pm
Dean
Wales
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 28
Member Since:
10/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I can sympathise on this particular topic as I myself have to travel every day from Wales to Weston-super-Mare, which as you can appreciate can take a toll on the bank balance!

For someone to be able to sit their and do absolutely nothing all day long when I have to spend £30 round trip just to get to work and back home really is ridiculous.
I have never had a problem with benefits; if someone really needs them and is in genuine need of some help - but to those who think that reproducing like rabbits is ok because each one is more income they should receive nothing and go get a job. 

I do not have children and that is because my girlfriend and I work every hour gods sends and we know that we cannot afford it at the moment. So the idea of capping at £26,000 is a good idea and this now means that if you cannot afford another child you do not have one and if you do decide to; on your head and wallet be it!

24/01/2012
2:02 pm
Štěpán T.
Guest
Guests
now that the governments been defeated by the house of lords and are now proposing that child benefit is excluded from the cap aren't we just back to square one now?!?! Yell

 

24/01/2012
3:00 pm
PaulBarrett
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2893
Member Since:
12/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think if the govt doesn't manage to overturn the Lords decision it is equivalent to £45000.00 gross wage.

Also remember there are some LHA claimants in Maida Vale receiveing £2000.00 per week in LHA plus all the other benefits.

I would like to live in Maida Vale but you know what I can't afford it and have to live where my meagre public service pension will aford me to live!!

Why should LHA claimants not have to make the same domestic decisions as me.

Personally I believe LHA should be based on what someone who is on minimum wage  plus tax credits can afford. to live.

25/01/2012
10:28 am
Paul Routledge
Admin
Forum Posts: 3415
Member Since:
20/05/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Štěpán T. said:

now that the governments been defeated by the house of lords and are now proposing that child benefit is excluded from the cap aren't we just back to square one now?!?! Yell
 

So now the plan is you get £26,000 for nought and then get paid for every kid you have. I don't mean to sound a meanie but wont that just mean that those that don't want to work will just have a new kid every year and get paid for it by us and then their kids in turn will have more kids because that's what the parents will tell them is the right way to live.

So this is how it goes under the new scheme £26,000 in benefits + £1055.60 for the first kid and £696.80 for each kid thereafter so if you have 10 of the little loves you will get a nice round £33,326.80 = £640.90 a week tax paid.

If a working man were earning a wage he would need to pay tax at 20% so after tax free £10,000 he would pay around £6000.00 in income tax and NI add this too  the £33,326.80 = £39,326.80 this is what the person will need to earn to equal what he would get in benefits. blimey what a deterrent to those that leach off others, I can here the lady in the job centre now "If you don't get a job you will be for it!! and you will be reduced to getting a paltry £39,326 a year"  blimey that should scare them enough to get them back to work "NOT"Laugh

25/01/2012
8:51 pm
PaulBarrett
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2893
Member Since:
12/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

 You can see why those Romanian gypsies with their multiple kids will be flocking over here to sell the big issue and then apply for the wonderful world of benefits.

Sory but time for BIG ISSUE sellers to prove their natinality or no sale .

If you hold a BRITISH pasport I might buy, if not  no I wouldn't but would suggest the person goes back to their own country as they are taking a job as a big issue seller from a BRITISH homeless person.

They can go and be homeless in their own country.

They won't like that as the welfare system will be nowhere as generous as this country.

What should happen is the govt stops all EU migration.

Chances of them doing that Zero!!

26/01/2012
11:54 am
Cedric
Golders Green
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 476
Member Since:
15/12/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I saw this recently and thought this was quite appropriate.

If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 Years hard labour.

If you cross the Afgan border you get shot.

Two Americans got 8 Years just for crossing the Iranian border.

If you cross the UK border illegally you get a job, a Drivers licence, food stamps, a place to live, health care, Housing and child benefits, education and a tax free business for 7 Years.

No wonder we a nation in debt !

It's a wonder life ?

26/01/2012
6:20 pm
Rigsby
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 49
Member Since:
12/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

PaulBarrett said:

 You can see why those Romanian gypsies with their multiple kids will be flocking over here to sell the big issue and then apply for the wonderful world of benefits.

Sory but time for BIG ISSUE sellers to prove their natinality or no sale .

If you hold a BRITISH pasport I might buy, if not  no I wouldn't but would suggest the person goes back to their own country as they are taking a job as a big issue seller from a BRITISH homeless person.

They can go and be homeless in their own country.

I like that Paul. But there may be a good chance of abuse if you ask the question

 

I normally tell them I get mine delivered.

26/01/2012
6:41 pm
Paul Routledge
Admin
Forum Posts: 3415
Member Since:
20/05/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

PaulBarrett said:

 You can see why those Romanian gypsies with their multiple kids will be flocking over here to sell the big issue and then apply for the wonderful world of benefits.

Sory but time for BIG ISSUE sellers to prove their natinality or no sale .

If you hold a BRITISH pasport I might buy, if not  no I wouldn't but would suggest the person goes back to their own country as they are taking a job as a big issue seller from a BRITISH homeless person.

They can go and be homeless in their own country.

They won't like that as the welfare system will be nowhere as generous as this country.

What should happen is the govt stops all EU migration.

Chances of them doing that Zero!!

Ha Ha I would love to go shopping with you paul I can see it now outside Waitrose "big issue, big issue get your big issue here"....

"show me your passport" Laugh

27/01/2012
12:58 pm
Frankie12345
Guest
Guests

Remember that the vast majority of the people who are getting that level of government support live in London where the cost of accommodation is ridiculously high.  I believe the statistic is that something like 2/3 of the benefit money goes on rent costs, so actually that £26k doesn't go that far (less than 9k/year to live on, by my calculation).

 

I'm not saying i'm for or against, just that the headline that benefit claimants are getting up to £26k, more than a lot of working households, doesn't necessarily represent the whole picture.

27/01/2012
6:25 pm
Paul Routledge
Admin
Forum Posts: 3415
Member Since:
20/05/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi Frankie,

I totally agree, I think the whole problem stems from the benefit culture that we have allowed to go on for years. Lets face it there isn't one person here that would not agree that a hard working person who has lost their job in these awful economic times does not deserve to be supported fully whilst looking for another job.

I think the real issue is the generations that have grown up thinking that the welfare system is not a catch net for you when things go wrong as it was designed for,  but that it is a wage which they are entitled to no matter what for the  lazy and delinquent without question.

When I worked in the city 20 years ago and lost my job in the last recession I had been paying nearly £2000 a month in tax and when I went to the dole office to get a job I stood in the queue next to a guy with a can of special brew at 9.00am in the morning I asked the lady in the booth what I got if I signed on £32 a week she said "what I replied" I have been paying £2000 a month for the last 5 years in tax and I only get £32 a week "what does the special brew man get then "£32 a week she said" and that is why the system does not work , you need to put nothing in to get it all out!! Yell

27/01/2012
6:42 pm
LyndonBaker
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1805
Member Since:
12/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I have mixed feelings about this and other Government benefit reforms but cannot disagree with the posters here.

 

Child Benefit:

I would stop all new child benefit claims after the first two children. I was born when there was no child benefit for the first child and my parents chose not to have another because they could not afford it. I would phase it out over five years for those with more than two children thus giving them a chance to get a job off benefits and discourage those who see popping out babies as a career choice.

Housing Allowance:

I strongly disagree that single people up to 35 are expected to share. That age limit is far too high. Take for instance a married man who is made redundant at say 32 and his marriage breaks up. Not only does he have to deal with redundancy and a relationship breakdown, he now has to cope with living in a bed-sit. Yes, rents in London are high and the tendency seems to be to blame the landlord who is depicted as greedy etc. If the council is willing to pay up to £2000 per week, which of us would refuse it and say the property is only worth £1000 per week? Workers cannot afford to live in some areas, so why should those on benefits?

Universal Credit (aka Dole etc)

When I first entered the workforce, too many years ago, there was a difference between the Dole and Social Security. If you were newly unemployed or had not paid in enough then you had to claim the social security which was less than the dole. The simple equation was that if you had not paid in, you could not claim!

Benefits and Asylum/Illegal Immigrants:

Watch the programmes on UK and Australia immigration for examples of how not to control immigration and how to control it. UK tells them to go away and come back another day – and of course they do – ROFL. The Australians hold them at the airport/port etc until they can be returned whence they came.

27/01/2012
9:17 pm
mary latham
Guest
Guests

I gave my opinion here

http://www.property118.com/ind.....more-18124

 

My sister lives in Italy and she would tell you that Italians think that English people are from another planet and that we are prepoccupied with our "image" to the point where we would rather leave our own elderly (who have worked hard and built the national health system) lonely, vulnerable and confused than send a person with Aids back to his own country of origin to get the expensive health care that he needs.

I would love to take care of the needy of the whole world but I want to begin by taking care of those who contributed in the belief that they would spend their later years in safety.

In my opinion those who choose to come to the UK should expect to contribute and if they need help to get started there should be a limit on the time and amount of that help. Those who were born here may also need help at times but again this should be limited in time and amount. If people cannot afford to live in London they need to find a home elsewhere, if people cannot afford to care for 6 children they should not bring 6 children into the world. The reality of life is that most of us cannot afford our dreams, even when we work very hard trying.

Until we begin to motivate people to take care of themselves we will fail to take care of those who need help most and who are entitled to expect it.

27/01/2012
11:48 pm
PaulBarrett
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2893
Member Since:
12/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Frankie12345 said:

Remember that the vast majority of the people who are getting that level of government support live in London where the cost of accommodation is ridiculously high.  I believe the statistic is that something like 2/3 of the benefit money goes on rent costs, so actually that £26k doesn't go that far (less than 9k/year to live on, by my calculation).

 

I'm not saying I'm for or against, just that the headline that benefit claimants are getting up to £26k, more than a lot of working households, doesn't necessarily represent the whole picture.

Just after I posted that response what did I see but some fat old Romanian in Bishop's Stortford High Street sitting down; shouting out Big Issue....I was so tempted to go over and tell her what I thought of her.

But I restrained myself.

I bet she is collected by a Romanian driving a big expensive car where they  all pass over their earnings to their gangmaster.

The govt could stop all this just by stopping all EU migration.

But they won't and we the taxpayer will end suporting half of eastern europe at enormous cost to the UK infrastructure.

Why do thes epeople all want to come here and not other EU countries.

Is is it perhaps that our benefit syestem may be abused more easily than the other EU countries and is perhaps more beneficial to these cklaimants.

30/01/2012
10:21 am
Louis
Guest
Guests

There appears to be unanimity in these posts, and I agree.

The issue of one of fairness, and the Government have got it right when they say the vast majority of the voting public (apart from the millions on benefits!) are in favour.

What annoys me is the unelected House of Lords, led by the bishops, have taken it upon themselves to be our conscience, pulling at our heart strings over the poor children; always the children, and the benefits scroungers know all about this and play the system for all its worth. What do priests and Lords, who live in the lap of luxury and receive handsome attendance allowances and expenses paid for by us, know about the minds of the underclasses?

We chose to have 2 children because we felt we could not afford more and have the lifestyle we aspired to for ourselves and our family. This was all in vain because whatever extra we have earned through effort and sacrifice, has gone in higher taxes to pay for the indolent and feckless.

This Government must hammer a stick in the ground. It must start now, otherwise it never will. It may take a few years of transition, and exceptional cases will need to be managed, but we need tough action now for a better future for all.

30/01/2012
12:33 pm
Paul Routledge
Admin
Forum Posts: 3415
Member Since:
20/05/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Louis,

How eloquent and correct you are in your post.

It is like most laws and good intentions that are brought about by politicians, they are implimented to look after the vulnerable and those that truly need our help but then the same laws to protect and provide are used by the unscrupulous and criminal to exploit and steal from us.

What we need to do is address the balance of how much notice we take of the "Do Gooders" because unfortunately their do-gooding is a double edged sword whereby; on one hand they help the cause but in doing so create a flood gate for those who wish to abuse the system - who are able to walk through the gate of claimant almost unchallenged. 

30/01/2012
2:06 pm
mary latham
Guest
Guests

"This Government must hammer a stick in the ground. It must start now, otherwise it never will. It may take a few years of transition, and exceptional cases will need to be managed, but we need tough action now for a better future for all."

 

I wish that I had said that Louise I have just tweeted it.

 

follow me on Twitter @landlordtweets

30/01/2012
2:42 pm
Paul Routledge
Admin
Forum Posts: 3415
Member Since:
20/05/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

mary latham said:

"This Government must hammer a stick in the ground. It must start now, otherwise it never will. It may take a few years of transition, and exceptional cases will need to be managed, but we need tough action now for a better future for all."

 

I wish that I had said that Louise I have just tweeted it.

 

follow me on Twitter @landlordtweets

And maybe we can convince all those that will vote for labour just because they promise them things they cant afford just to get into power NOT TO and then maybe with a few years of cutting our cloth to suit our coin and reinvestment into our economy we will see the green shoots of recovery. But real shoots created from manufacturing & industry rather than the false monopoly economy created from over inflated property & share prices which have no substance.

Our future Governments must not allow or rely on these unproductive house of card economic strategies and all just so they can grab at taxes and pump it back into a welfare and over staffed public employment system because it gets them votes and keeps them in power.Yell

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 755

Currently Online:
16 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

PaulBarrett: 2893

Mary Latham: 2190

LyndonBaker: 1805

David Price: 1659

Patricia A: 986

DATA CONTROL: 968

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2552

Members: 6347

Moderators: 6

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 3

Topics: 4492

Posts: 31023

Newest Members:

gemmaj, parv1, kirwanssolicitors, dharle, dsh1892, frazer

Moderators: SamiiB: 445, News @ Tenant Referencing: 1586, laura: 15, Chloe: 107, lucybarr: 0, jaswhite: 20

Administrators: Paul Routledge: 3415

/* ]]> */