Opposition grows to benefit cap

[BlackLabel]

"David Cameron has vowed to reduce the annual benefits cap from £26,000 to £23,000 “within the first few days” of a Conservative victory in the general election.

The Prime Minister said the £135 million in savings generated by this further squeeze for benefit claimants would be used towards funding three million apprenticeships by 2020, a scheme expected to cost £300 million annually."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/davi...

[Gargamel]

BlackLabel said:

"David Cameron has vowed to reduce the annual benefits cap from £26,000 to £23,000 “within the first few days” of a Conservative victory in the general election.

The Prime Minister said the £135 million in savings generated by this further squeeze for benefit claimants would be used towards funding three million apprenticeships by 2020, a scheme expected to cost £300 million annually."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/davi...

Fine with me, heard DC on the Today programme this morning, I know he does not get a lot of love on here, but I still think politically he is the tallest dwarf in the room.

[Steffan]

BlackLabel said:

"David Cameron has vowed to reduce the annual benefits cap from £26,000 to £23,000 “within the first few days” of a Conservative victory in the general election.

The Prime Minister said the £135 million in savings generated by this further squeeze for benefit claimants would be used towards funding three million apprenticeships by 2020, a scheme expected to cost £300 million annually."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/davi...

I am not a fan of Cameron or his government. However it is a fact that the UK must find some wy to stop the Benefits abuses that are occurring still despite the efforts of IDS over the last four years. The UK cannot offer a better life for those on benefits than those who are working. Therefore some form of benefits cap must be introduced. This is a process that must continue until all of the benefits claimants realise that working and earning for themselves is their best future and not living on benefits. Life on benefits has become all too easy in the UK. We have to return to the days when every individual was looking for work and not looking for ways to access benefits.

This has to happen or the entire benefits system will collapse because unless the taxpayers can afford the benefits that are being paid in the UK the enure welfare system will be threatened. Life is not always easy for everyone. We all have to work for a living and make the most we can for our families working and earning money.

The Sovialist ideals promulgating greater benefits are unaffordable claptrap promulgated by self serving politicians seeking high earnings from gaining the trappings of political power. This is wholly unaffordable and cannot not continue.. Therefore much as I dislike Caeron and his rice boy outlook, on this occasion he is right. No one can hope to receive more income from benefits than they can earn for themselves in employment. Reality of economics in the 21st century.

It is up to the individual to live within his means. There are no fairy godmothers about reay to rescue individuals who ruin their lives or have too many choice. That is their choice. Not offering greater income to such individuals than they could earn themselves must be the choice of the UK.

[George111]

I don't know why he's so bothered about this, there are very few people claiming that much and £135m is a drop in the ocean. How about the in work benefits they have to pay out to people who work but don't earn enough ! Raise the minimum wage to be the living wage then they can cut out billions not just a handful of million.

He also wants to cut housing benefit to 18-21 year olds . . . so where will they live ? That's a cretinous thing to so, just moronic. It won't even save much money - he's looking at his feet and he should be looking round the next bend !

Also, with this constant pressure on benefits, what happens when I or you need to claim ? Maybe after a car accident we can't work - I've paid tax for 26 years continuously, I pay a lot more tax per month than somebody on the average wage earns but I'll be told I've got savings or I own a house or even if I do end up qualifying I'll get such a small amount to make it of little value. There should be a contributions element in the benefit . . . that would encourage people to work surely ?

[98elise]

George111 said:

I don't know why he's so bothered about this, there are very few people claiming that much and £135m is a drop in the ocean. How about the in work benefits they have to pay out to people who work but don't earn enough ! Raise the minimum wage to be the living wage then they can cut out billions not just a handful of million.

He also wants to cut housing benefit to 18-21 year olds . . . so where will they live ? That's a cretinous thing to so, just moronic. It won't even save much money - he's looking at his feet and he should be looking round the next bend !

Also, with this constant pressure on benefits, what happens when I or you need to claim ? Maybe after a car accident we can't work - I've paid tax for 26 years continuously, I pay a lot more tax per month than somebody on the average wage earns but I'll be told I've got savings or I own a house or even if I do end up qualifying I'll get such a small amount to make it of little value. There should be a contributions element in the benefit . . . that would encourage people to work surely ?

Why does an 18-21 year old need the state to pay for their home? I left home when I could afford it.

[JagLover]

98elise said:

Why does an 18-21 year old need the state to pay for their home? I left home when I could afford it.

This

Other European countries usually have far less generous non-contributory benefits and the unemployed youth stay with family until they can afford to move out.

[George111]

98elise said:

Why does an 18-21 year old need the state to pay for their home? I left home when I could afford it.

Some of them do not have a home to leave or find themselves homeless. But again, we're talking about a tiny percentage - it's gesture politics not a considered approach to deal with a specific, expensive issue.

[RYH64E]

98elise said:

Why does an 18-21 year old need the state to pay for their home? I left home when I could afford it.

It does make one wonder how we ever managed in the days before the state took responsibility for everything.

[Rovinghawk]

George111 said:

£135m is a drop in the ocean.

Better to light just one candle than to curse the darkness.

Also a hundred million here, a hundred million there, pretty soon you're talking about a lot of money.

[Rovinghawk]

crankedup said:

Cutting the bloated State - to a point, but I wouldn't want to see essential services lost or decreased. By that I mean education, health, fire and rescue, care for the elderly, those are IMO sacrosanct.

There is a lot that can have reductions in expenditure without losing what I would see as the essentials.

Whilst many might consider every aspect of the NHS sacrosanct, it was never set up to provide unlimited treatment regardless of cost. Certain cancer drugs, for example, might extend lifespan by a couple of months but their £100,000 cost might be better spent elsewhere. A bit harsh on the individual but for the greater good of the greater number.

The pot isn't limitless and therefore choices have to made. There should be no sacred cows.

[Steffan]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

Cutting the bloated State - to a point, but I wouldn't want to see essential services lost or decreased. By that I mean education, health, fire and rescue, care for the elderly, those are IMO sacrosanct.

There is a lot that can have reductions in expenditure without losing what I would see as the essentials.

Whilst many might consider every aspect of the NHS sacrosanct, it was never set up to provide unlimited treatment regardless of cost. Certain cancer drugs, for example, might extend lifespan by a couple of months but their £100,000 cost might be better spent elsewhere. A bit harsh on the individual but for the greater good of the greater number.

The pot isn't limitless and therefore choices have to made. There should be no sacred cows.

I agree.

As an individual I cannot afford to sped more than I earn. That is a rule that must apply to every citizen. The promulgation of unlimited care or unlimited rights is a complete economic nonsense. No coutry can afford to spend more than it earns. Simple really but unpopular with the socialists generally. No individual has ant right to be paid more than they can earn.

Every political decision must be tested with the simple question. Can we afford this? Socialist will hate the process but spending more than a country earns is economic suicide. So all the taxpayers suffer. There are no winners with dreamland politics except the few politicians who manoevering themselves into power and make as much on the gravy train as they can from teir time in politics. This cannot be a sustainable policy. No country can afford unlimited spending.

[jonah35]

Why say he will do it after the election? Why not now?

[russ_a]

George111 said:

I don't know why he's so bothered about this, there are very few people claiming that much and £135m is a drop in the ocean. How about the in work benefits they have to pay out to people who work but don't earn enough ! Raise the minimum wage to be the living wage then they can cut out billions not just a handful of million.

This is something I never understood. Places like Tesco pay poorly and the tax payer tops us their staff wages. Just force Tesco to pay a living wage.

[xjsdriver]

rich1231 said:

Hmm is there really any need for anyone to receive over £26k a year in benefits?

I can't see any justification at all, apart from disability related claimants.

They don't!!! Rent, being the biggest chunk - usually goes straight to the landlord, so it's the landlords that see the greater part of an individuals benefit...... I think the current level of JSA is about £70 a week for single claimants and £115 for a couple - hardly a kings' ransom is it? I'd like to see some of the usual suspects on here live for a month or two on benefits (say between November and December, for example) and let them see how well they do......

[sidicks]

russ_a said:

This is something I never understood. Places like Tesco pay poorly and the tax payer tops us their staff wages. Just force Tesco to pay a living wage.

For the millionth time, the minimum wage would be the 'living wage' if the government didn't tax it...

Blame the government for taxing people so heavily to fund excessive spending!

[MiniMan64]

jonah35 said:

Why say he will do it after the election? Why not now?

Libdems?

[xjsdriver]

98elise said:

Why does an 18-21 year old need the state to pay for their home? I left home when I could afford it.

.....and what are those without parents or family supposed to do?.....end up on the streets? I thought we lived in a decent, civilised society..... apparently not, according to a lot of the views posted on here.

[Hackney]

Nothing else has changed, in fact many costs have gone up, but Cameron expects people to get by on £3,000 per year less. How?

Most of the cost of benefits is still rent, yet rents go up and house prices go up.

[turbobloke]

Hackney said:

Nothing else has changed, in fact many costs have gone up, but Cameron expects people to get by on £3,000 per year less. How?

An average smoker spends over £3000 per year on harming themselves. One option for smokers is to stop. Then there's £1000 on alcohol, not essential in tough times but maybe the times aren't tough enough.

Then again no low earners smoke or drink so that's straight out the window.

[anonymous-user]

xjsdriver said:

rich1231 said:

Hmm is there really any need for anyone to receive over £26k a year in benefits?

I can't see any justification at all, apart from disability related claimants.

They don't!!! Rent, being the biggest chunk - usually goes straight to the landlord, so it's the landlords that see the greater part of an individuals benefit...... I think the current level of JSA is about £70 a week for single claimants and £115 for a couple - hardly a kings' ransom is it? I'd like to see some of the usual suspects on here live for a month or two on benefits (say between November and December, for example) and let them see how well they do......

Ahhh, so rent doesn't count? So all those working to pay mortgages have been wasting their time, the government can pay for their houses at no cost to anyone?

Wake up FFS. WE CANT AFFORD IT!