Benefits shake-up begins in London

[super jumbe]

A cap on the amount of benefits people can receive has come into force in a policy that is being trialled in parts of London.

The cap, being introduced in the four boroughs of Croydon, Bromley, Haringey and Enfield, will see couples and single parents receive no more than ?500 a week in benefits. The limit for single people is ?350, though there are some exemptions.

National implementation of the cap will begin in July, and the policy should come fully into force by the end of September.

The cap is being brought in to cut spending and to bring benefits payments into line with average income.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said last week: "The benefit cap sets a clear limit for how much support the welfare state will provide - the average wage for working households.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/benefits-shake-begins-london-051605411.html#R58ghJg

[Kalipo]

Ha, that should keep the slags legs shut... haha..

[Meat-Head]

Ha, that should keep the slags legs shut... haha..

Would have thought open to earn money?

[ajax2061]

nah meaty, slag like to pop out kids like crazy, 9 kids 9 different fathers big house benefits coming in etc etc and don't forget the money they get from all the different fathers (if they work)

I can see why they started in London with private rents round there being really high, will make ppl take cheaper housing/move area

[KDC]

This is all very well and good for scroungers who abuse the welfare system but the tories tar everyone with the same brush here, you only have to look at Osbourne's comments on the Philpotts to confirm that. What about the terminally ill ,disabled and the carers who have no choice but to give up work to look after disabled loved ones? The tories will target them too.. Thatcher may be dead but thatcherism is not!

[GastonJ]

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said last week: "The benefit cap sets a clear limit for how much support the welfare state will provide - the average wage for working households."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/benefits-shake-begins-london-051605411.html#R58ghJg

It's all well and good them coming out with such a policy, but with the minimum wage being ?6.19 and hour it doesn't take a genius too long to work out that anyone on minimum wage would have to work 80 hours a week to achieve the average wage - which with the WTD won't happen. Not that the hours in the WTD should be raised, but the minimum wage should be. So getting back to it, claim up to ?26k a year doing nothing or work 40 hours a week at minimum wage and get half that - where's the incentive again?

Those earning the minimum wage can claim tax credits and all sorts of 'goodies' to top them up? yes - employment subsidised (by the taxpayer) so that employers can pay a wage that's half the average, or half that which can be claimed for doing nothing?

Usual story though. Rather than raise standards, lower them, that way the poor stay poor and as far away from the rich as possible. Still it keeps the government popular with the brain dead voters.

[Meat-Head]

Will you be voting next time?

[GastonJ]

Might do, might not. Depends whether there is anything worth voting for.

[Lainie]

how do you think i feel when im working for half the salary of the benefit cap!!

[Meat-Head]

Well pm your boss this thread

[GastonJ]

Perhaps you should campaign for a wage rise instead - aren't you a member of PCS?, that way you'd get a better standard of living - rather than the governments way of thinking which is to take more from those that aren't millionaires and tell you how nice they are and that you should thank them for taking money from the poorer of society, giving you nothing and tell you that they've evened the score. All of which does *not* benefit those working for below average wage in any way shape or form. It doesn't even lower your tax bill. All that happens is the government gains by their misery.

[Lainie]

oh believe me when we got the email last year re the benefit cap i did respond to it saying fantastic - i take it im getting a ?13000 wage rise this year to bring me into line with benefits! im not the only dwp member on here meat believe me but i am the only one that will admit it. im sure sky staff, tax staff and policemen/woman are on here too.

[super jumbe]

Perhaps you should campaign for a wage rise instead - aren't you a member of PCS?, that way you'd get a better standard of living - rather than the governments way of thinking which is to take more from those that aren't millionaires and tell you how nice they are and that you should thank them for taking money from the poorer of society, giving you nothing and tell you that they've evened the score. All of which does *not* benefit those working for below average wage in any way shape or form. It doesn't even lower your tax bill. All that happens is the government gains by their misery.

Gaston will you slow your right hand movements I am getting dizzy!!!!!

[Canker_Canison]

Gaston will you slow your right hand movements I am getting dizzy!!!!!

How do you know he's right handed? Last I heard, G's such a man he has to use both hands. Not tht I spend my time watching him,

So there's a benefit cap of ?500. Is that the level set for London? Will the cap be lower for deprived areas?... I only ask as it's well known that it's more expensive to live in London. Professionals get paid more when working in London to make up for the higher cost of living.

[GastonJ]

Oddy enough I am ambidextrous

To me the idea of the cap on rents is to drive the poor out of those areas where rents are high to make it much easier for those with jobs and money to move in, which in turn will drive up house prices and rents. How can anyone who is unemployed afford to rent a house in London anyway, even with benefits is beyond me. So they cam up with the idea of capping the help that people get. Landlords won't be dropping rents out of the goodness of their hearts, so it means those receiving benefits will have to move to areas where rents are cheaper, leaving the area free from unemployed. This will apply whether you have been unemployed 10 seconds or 10 years I take it? So get caught between jobs and have to move to a poorer rented area, families being forced to move whether they like it or not from areas where they grew up, where their roots are, just because they were unfortunate enough to work for a company that closed.

The only logical conclusion to that move can be you'll have rich and poor areas, segregated communities of the haves and have nots. The government passed the law and the people accepted it because "we voted for them, their policies". This only serves to make the rich/poor gap wider and more obvious. Though as I said it seems to be popular with people for some reason.

I'll now admit to being one of the "haves", who pays higher taxes which in turn was used to help those less fortunate in society than myself. For me it's always been that way and I expected it to continue, for me it never made a difference and was he right thing to do. That's why I made the point above. I have to wonder now where the taxation I was, and still am, paying is going if it's not going to help those less fortunate than myself where is it going?, because they sure as f**k aren't giving me my money back - perhaps it's lining the pockets of bankers. Maybe t's time to say f**k it and leave this broken country behind.