• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

New Benefit caps

jonna

Distinguished Member
I know benefit payments are a touchy subject but I find it hard to understand how much money can be claimed. I was unemployed for 8 months after working for the same company for 30 years and I received £65 a week job seekers allowance. Thankfully I have been employed for the last 16 months.
How much is the benefit cap?
The level of the cap will be: £500 a week for couples (with or without children living with them)
£500 a week for single parents whose children live with them
£350 a week for single adults who don’t have children, or whose children don’t live with them.
 

DrWise

Banned
bredrin whats all dis language
it soundin' foreign to me blad
 

BomoLad

Prominent Member
The association with benefits and 'chav' is typical of this war on the working classes. Most people on benefits work their arse off in low-paid, often hard labour jobs. Yet they get mocked as 'chavs'. I despair, genuinely.

I think the benefit cap is £26,000, isn't it?
 

alan280170

Distinguished Member
The association with benefits and 'chav' is typical of this war on the working classes. Most people on benefits work their arse off in low-paid, often hard labour jobs. Yet they get mocked as 'chavs'. I despair, genuinely.

I think the benefit cap is £26,000, isn't it?

A week :p:eek::facepalm::rolleyes: got to get on that gravy train.
 

nheather

Distinguished Member
I think the benefit cap is £26,000, isn't it?

It is set at the national average household income, which is currently £26k.

I still question why it is this high. Why should benefits allow you to receive more than 50% of the housholds in the country?

The benefit cap should be set so that tyat no one has to go without the basics and essentials for life.

Obviosly I understand that just because the cap is set to £26k doesn't mean that is what you get.

Cheers,

Nigel
 
Setting the cap at £26k makes me wonder just how high some people's benefits have been!

Ditch the nanny state and get more people in a position where they have to work. Ive no idea how anyone would rather stay home then get a job, its good for the soul.

I think the Philpott case highlighted the typical benefit family, how he got away with not being forced to work is a joke, the council responsible should be ashamed.
 
D

Deleted member 92943

Guest
Benefits really needs to be capped so that it forces people to go out and work and work as a reward top up, when your a low earner. I work and live quite comfortably on £17k a year

Child Benefit needs to be capped at 2 children too.
 

amkhan

Established Member
does that 26K factor in stuff like free council tax and free school meals etc?... if not then the "real" limit is far higher.
 

Mr.D

Distinguished Member
I'm assuming the £26k is top whack including housing benefit ?

What abotu disability ; I know a few families with disabled kids who would struggle to survive on that.

Otherwise thats crazy ; I know some people who have worked for over 20 years who don't earn that ; I doubt my parents earned that at the end of their working lives.
 

xox Godders xox

Prominent Member
People scrounging and not working as a lifestyle choice while claiming benefits is an outrage but these people actually make up a small number of benefits claimants. The fact everyone automatically starts talking about chavs and scroungers whenever there's a discussion on benefits just goes to show how effective the Tories hatchet job on the poor has been.

Very sad.
 

Mr.D

Distinguished Member
Child Benefit needs to be capped at 2 children too.

You can't do that; the whole point of child benefit is to provide some benefit to the children themselves. You can means test it ; I'm no longer eligible for it and indeed have to pay it to my missus otherwise it comes out my tax these days.
 

Mr.D

Distinguished Member
People scrounging and not working as a lifestyle choice while claiming benefits is an outrage but these people actually make up a small number of benefits claimants. The fact everyone automatically starts talking about chavs and scroungers whenever there's a discussion on benefits just goes to show how effective the Tories hatchet job on the poor has been.

Very sad.

Tory policy; target a part of society less able to defend themselves and make them pariahs in order to deflect from the real issues such as destroying jobs and cutting public spending whilst raising taxation for everyone except the wealthy and megarich corporations.

Cue a whole round of stories in the Sun and Daily Mail about benefit scroungers ; football fans , miners , steelworkers , fishermen , farmers , teachers , nurses , police and anyone else who the tories want to blame for the state of the country.
 

amkhan

Established Member
Tory policy; target a part of society less able to defend themselves and make them pariahs in order to deflect from the real issues such as destroying jobs and cutting public spending whilst raising taxation for everyone except the wealthy and megarich corporations.

Thing is I bet most people can name and shame people they know who are taking the ****, and are claiming funds that should be going to deserving families. However, most councils don't seem overly interested in investigating so that's why it gets peoples backs up. Its not due to the genuine claimants, its the because of the few bad eggs.
 

bl0at3r

Banned
Should you be allowed to have children if you have no means to bring them up and support them?

Why should working people who can't or choose not to have children suffer?
 

Pisto_Grih

Distinguished Member
Setting the cap at £26k makes me wonder just how high some people's benefits have been!

Ditch the nanny state and get more people in a position where they have to work. Ive no idea how anyone would rather stay home then get a job, its good for the soul.

I think the Philpott case highlighted the typical benefit family, how he got away with not being forced to work is a joke, the council responsible should be ashamed.

:confused: Yes, a man who fathered 17 children (and killed 6 of them), lived with his wife and his mistress (one of whom he enjoyed watching having sex with other men, the other he started a sexual relationship with when she was 15) and had previous convictions for attempted murder, actual bodily harm and common assault, is typical of the sort of people on benefits.

Engage brain before keyboard :lease:
 

RottenFox

Distinguished Member
D

Deleted member 51156

Guest
Should you be allowed to have children if you have no means to bring them up and support them?

Why should working people who can't or choose not to have children suffer?

Considering we live in an age with no job security, forward planning would indicate having any children for anyone wouldn't be a good idea...
 

DrapedInDarkness

Distinguished Member
When my mum passed away and I became one of the long term unemployed I found it degrading and humiliating, and at £72 a week not enough to live on comfortably, then got a job at HMV on my own, no help from the job centre and worked my ass off to become indispensable and appreciated......then HMV got into trouble and I became another statistic who lost his job, back to the degradation of being on benefit, actively looking for work amongst the druggies and drunks who show up every week since my first and second period of unemployment, now trying to get myself back into better shape I went power walking and found a divot breaking my ankle, I'm told that because I cannot actively look for work I have to sign off and sign on to the new ESA benefit which is only £71 a week, I don't drive and have to take a bus into town at £5 a pop, so the benefits system will never actually benefit somebody like me who genuinely wants to work and is damn good at any job he tries, yet through no fault of my own they claw back £3 a week while it heals.

And no I am not Tory bashing, it would be no better under Labour.
 

xox Godders xox

Prominent Member
Should you be allowed to have children if you have no means to bring them up and support them?

Why should working people who can't or choose not to have children suffer?
It's arguable that people who are able to work but who choose not to and instead claim state benefits throughout their adult life should not be supported in having children. The question is what do you do about it? Unless you want to wander into some very dodgy territory morally and ethically you cannot prevent people from having kids and once they do I think most would rather these kids were given a roof over their head and food to eat (after all it's not their fault that they were born to feckless parents).

But as has already been said a couple of times in this thread the majority of benefits claimants do not fall into this category anyway. Unemployment in this country is at 2.5M and there are a hell of a lot more working age benefits claimants than that.

The maths isn't difficult (even for a numerical dunce like me).
 
Last edited:

Rorifett

Distinguished Member
xox Godders xox said:
just goes to show how effective the Tories hatchet job on the poor has been.

Totally, nobody cared about the schemies scheming and ****ing us all over when labour were in power, no, it's the Tories fault...

xox Godders xox said:
The question is what do you do about it? Unless you want to wander into some very dodgy territory morally and ethically

I'm presuming you'd class generational sterilisation as unethical? If so I'm out of ideas ;)
 

The latest video from AVForums

CES 2023 Round Up: New TV Lineups for 2023 from LG, Samsung, Panasonic, Hisense & TCL
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom