Proposed benefit cuts Options

[massifheed]

Was just reading this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185

and wondered what people's thoughts were. The example family in the link get approx £30,000 per year in benefit, and could stand to lose £4000 if the cap were introduced. Looking at the family's ougoings I find it hard to have a great deal of sympathy. The guy has been out of work for 10 years (so one wonders why he hasn't retrained or at least found something in that time), they manage to find the funds for a Sky TV subscription - with movies, 200 cigarettes and 24 cans of lager a week.

They clearly go without in other areas - they have no car and don't go on holiday every year (although many other people don't either!), but it seems obvious to me that if people are able to be in receipt of the equivalent of a respectable salary (30k is way more than I earn) without, in theory, having to leave the house or even get up in the morning, then we will end up with generations upon generations of families who will simply choose not to work. Cutting benefits so that people can no longer afford to use them to fund Sky TV, 24 cans of lager and 200 fags a week may be the start needed.

[blackdog]

Looking at the article it is easy enough to get worked up about the Sky TV, mobiles, fags and booze - cutting those out might fit this family into the £26 limit.

But imagine what the same limit would mean to a family around here, or in London - where £76 a week wouldn't get you a tent, let alone space (just) for a family of eight.

Sure the chap should be retrained which would, ideally see him working - but he lives in North Wales - where the chances of getting a job with his CV must be below zero. If they relocate to somewhere where jobs exist - say Newbury, could he get a job paying enough to support and, notably, to house the family - I doubt it.

The £26k cap will force families to move to places where they can exist on £26k - usually areas with high unemployment. I'm not sure how that will help?

Another simple issue - a family with 6 kids has to survive on £26k in N Wales, a family with 2 kids in the south-east will get the same £26k owing to massively higher housing costs. Is that fair? All unwaged large families must move to sink estates in poverty striken areas.

Unless the government subsidises housing in some other way (eg building thousands of council houses) I can't see how this 'one size fits all' cap will work in any way that could be defined as fair.

[Guest_xjay1337_*]

Looking at the article it is easy enough to get worked up about the Sky TV, mobiles, fags and booze - cutting those out might fit this family into the £26 limit.

But imagine what the same limit would mean to a family around here, or in London - where £76 a week wouldn't get you a tent, let alone space (just) for a family of eight.

Sure the chap should be retrained which would, ideally see him working - but he lives in North Wales - where the chances of getting a job with his CV must be below zero. If they relocate to somewhere where jobs exist - say Newbury, could he get a job paying enough to support and, notably, to house the family - I doubt it.

The £26k cap will force families to move to places where they can exist on £26k - usually areas with high unemployment. I'm not sure how that will help?

Another simple issue - a family with 6 kids has to survive on £26k in N Wales, a family with 2 kids in the south-east will get the same £26k owing to massively higher housing costs. Is that fair? All unwaged large families must move to sink estates in poverty striken areas.

Unless the government subsidises housing in some other way (eg building thousands of council houses) I can't see how this 'one size fits all' cap will work in any way that could be defined as fair.

So why doesn't he look for jobs nationally and if he gets one then relocate? That's a stupid amount of money to be getting on benefits and after 10 years this guy has clearly got no will to get another job..
Location isn't an excuse really, not when you've been bone idle for a decade. You can happily live in pretty much any area in and around Newbury for a **** of a lot less than £26k...I was on £15k and managed to rent my own place, pay finance, insurance, and what not.. it's not really that hard to look for cheaper places to live.

[blackdog]

So why doesn't he look for jobs nationally and if he gets one then relocate? That's a stupid amount of money to be getting on benefits and after 10 years this guy has clearly got no will to get another job..
Location isn't an excuse really, not when you've been bone idle for a decade. You can happily live in pretty much any area in and around Newbury for a **** of a lot less than £26k...I was on £15k and managed to rent my own place, pay finance, insurance, and what not.. it's not really that hard to look for cheaper places to live.

If you can keep youirself and your wife (your bipolar wife), and your six kids on £26k paying Newbury rents then I am impressed. One person could easily live on that amount - but eight? That's £3250 each.

If I was in that situation I would be seriously p****d off to see the two child family next door getting exactly the same.

This cap will force people to move away from the places where the jobs are - making them even less likely to get off their sofas and get a job.

I'm not arguing that the benefits system is not overgenerous, just that this cap is an unfair and dumb way of trying to solve the problem.

[Guest_xjay1337_*]

If you can keep youirself and your wife (your bipolar wife), and your six kids on £26k paying Newbury rents then I am impressed. One person could easily live on that amount - but eight? That's £3250 each.

If I was in that situation I would be seriously p****d off to see the two child family next door getting exactly the same.

This cap will force people to move away from the places where the jobs are - making them even less likely to get off their sofas and get a job.

I'm not arguing that the benefits system is not overgenerous, just that this cap is an unfair and dumb way of trying to solve the problem.

I agree with what you're saying, I understand that for me £15k was just enough to get by, more people would obviously increase the financial strain, but there comes a point where you have to stop. I mean, for me, I bought a brand new bike on finance, the bike cost nearly £10,000, it's basically £212 a month. Plus being young and having a swanky car my car insurance is £160 a month (actually my car is one of the cheapest cars to insure for me full stop) - you think that's bad, last year I was paying £350 a month!!. I have a phone contract which I shopped around for and got an iPhone 4 when they had only recently came out, for £37 a month with no up front cost. So good deal there.

Without giving my life story, what I'm trying to explain is that as you get older, general living costs DECREASE and that by being proactive you can still enjoy a decent lifestyle on a lower income. Being young I go out, driving, going to shows, whatever, I can burn though £80 of diesel a week if I'm not careful. But if I didn't have finance out and/or I was older with more years of no claims, my major outgoings (aside from my rent) would probably be halved.

I think stewiegriffin said it was £30 of food, per head, per week? That is a obscene amount considering £30 of shopping would last me 2-3 weeks, if I didn't eat so much And that's with premium products, if I were to by the cheapy versions of things (Which I do from time to time, no shame in it whatsoever) then it's more like £10 for a weeks worth of food, admittedly not healthy stuff, processed rubbish, but it's food nevertheless.

For example, looking around Newbury and Thatcham you can find PLENTY of double rooms to rent for under £400. If you want to rent a whole house then it's more like £600-£800 depending on size/location etc. Fair enough. But remember these people are on £540 a week (or something, too tired to remember) - Which is enough to pay for the bare essentials, such as your grounds rent, water and electric bills, and basic and necessary amenities such as washing powder, bog roll, and food. I think their choice to spend a large proportion of their income on alochol and tobacco sort of shows they're not very good at managing their money.

You may not know it or believe it but I actually have anxiety and up until about 8-12 months ago I had clinical depression as well. I get worried about a lot of things very quickly and it piles up as people at work have seen, find it hard to talk to people who I have not met before unless we "click", or how I completely lose the ability to speak when I am worried I'm going to screw something up, but yet I'm still working, doing my best every day, "beating the system", heaven forbid I was to lose my job for some reason then I'd do whatever work was necessary in order for me to get by, whether that means working in a supermarket or picking litter. Having a mental disorder (depression, anxiety and bi-polar(bear)ianism can be controlled by drugs, unfortunately it can take time to find which sets of drugs work for you) - Not saying the mental problems are fake but saying that it's not an excuse. It's not Huntingtons or anything debilitating so quit moaning and get on with life!!

Neither is saying how you were a software engineer, which is frankly a pretty amazing job, now are unable to find work. Well you did that to yourself by being unemployed for 10 years. If you found a job, retrained within 6 months to a year it would probably be OK.

Now in short, yes I think there should be some sort of structure to the benefit scheme and the proposed £26k should be the upper limit. A cap is fair to all. A family such as Mr "I spend Taxpayers money on Booze" in the feature would be on £26k but if I happened to be on benefits I would get much less, perhaps £12k. A couple with one child may end up somewhere in the middle, £18-20k.
Basically it should be enough to just about get by without many luxuries.