When £35000 a year is not enough.

[Denny Crane!]

The government in the UK is facing steep opposition to a bill that would cap the amount of benefits a UK household can receive at £26000 a year, the equivalent of £35000 a year after tax. They have recently been defeated in the Lords in including child benefit in this cap because it should be a universal benefit so even millionaires receive it apparently.

3. The Government has announced that in order to promote fairness between those
in work and those receiving benefits, from 2013, benefit payments for individual
households will be capped at around the average earned income after tax and
National Insurance for working households. We estimate that the cap will be set
at £350 a week for households of a single adult with no children; and at £500 a
week for couple and lone parent households.

I think the laugh on this topic is I know a great deal of households with both parents working who don't get £35000 a year before tax and yet are paying taxes to pay for people who don't work and receive more income than they do.

How much is enough for benefits in your opinion?

[Condottiere 40K]

Wouldn't it vary by region? Don't you have more expenses in general living in an urban centre like London, as opposed to somewhere more rural.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

To think there are people who must live on £85/week (£4,420/year) for being disabled. I bet the government makes a huge net revenue from that when you consider how much those people paid in tax before before they were disabled.

[Derbiean]

The government in the UK is facing steep opposition to a bill that would cap the amount of benefits a UK household can receive at £26000 a year, the equivalent of £35000 a year after tax. They have recently been defeated in the Lords in including child benefit in this cap because it should be a universal benefit so even millionaires receive it apparently.

3. The Government has announced that in order to promote fairness between those
in work and those receiving benefits, from 2013, benefit payments for individual
households will be capped at around the average earned income after tax and
National Insurance for working households. We estimate that the cap will be set
at £350 a week for households of a single adult with no children; and at £500 a
week for couple and lone parent households.

I think the laugh on this topic is I know a great deal of households with both parents working who don't get £35000 a year before tax and yet are paying taxes to pay for people who don't work and receive more income than they do.

How much is enough for benefits in your opinion?

The trouble is in some circumstances £35k a year may well not be enough whether it is in the form of benefits or wages. There is a number of issues here surrounding the whole thing, mainly the cost of living and the wages on offer especially those that are the national minimum.

Also what is concerning is the comments from Cameron about how people should quit complaining about benefits and get a job, he seems ignorant of the fact that unemployment is rising in this country. I agree though that those who are capable of working (and are not in higher education) should work but the jobs need to be available and this isn't always the case.

[Stryker77]

The trouble is in some circumstances £35k a year may well not be enough whether it is in the form of benefits or wages.

How is £35k a year, not enough? If the area you live in is too expensive then move like every other family has to when they try to find work.

[Derbiean]

How is £35k a year, not enough? If the area you live in is too expensive then move like every other family has to when they try to find work.

Your assuming there is always jobs and housing to move to, i can tell you from experience that neither is readily available in my area and i doubt my area is the only one affected so I'm afraid it is not as simple as your making out.

[Stryker77]

There are always jobs, just ones no-one wants to do.

I'm sorry, anyone on £35,000 is not in poverty. They just need to cut their cloth like the rest of us do. Fully behind the government proposals on this.

[Rome101]

There are always jobs, just ones no-one wants to do.

This is, simply put, not true.
There are, however, jobs which poor people are usually unqualified for, and that's a whole other thing.

[Jom]

There are always jobs, just ones no-one wants to do.

I'm sorry, anyone on £35,000 is not in poverty. They just need to cut their cloth like the rest of us do. Fully behind the government proposals on this.

The reason why people don't want to do the jobs, is that increasingly employers are resorting to 0-hour contracts in order to save money. A 0-hour contract means that you have no set working hours and simply have to be available for work when your employer demands it, and you don't know if you're going to be working a 40 hour week or a 4 hour one.

[gaunty14]

How is £35k a year, not enough? If the area you live in is too expensive then move like every other family has to when they try to find work.

Often the parents can't keep their legs together and have four children etc
Obviously that is a generalisation but you get the point

[Robin de Bodemloze]

Often the parents can't keep their legs together and have four children etc
Obviously that is a generalisation but you get the point

All the more reason to relocate elsewhere where they can afford all those kids?

[Denny Crane!]

Wouldn't it vary by region? Don't you have more expenses in general living in an urban centre like London, as opposed to somewhere more rural.

No not at all. Every area urban or not has its poorer areas where costs are substantially less. London particularly is the most expensive area with a massive area that does not have high costs. Furthermore if you can't afford to live in an area you need to relocate. I live where I live now, if I lost all my jobs I couldn't keep on living here miles away from town in an expensive council tax area, life sucks get over it. I can live here because I work damned hard.

To think there are people who must live on £85/week (£4,420/year) for being disabled. I bet the government makes a huge net revenue from that when you consider how much those people paid in tax before before they were disabled.

This is what I don't understand I know a few people, wheelchair bound or out of work through no fault of their own and combined they aren't even getting £10k a year so who the hell is getting £25k a year that is beyond me.

The trouble is in some circumstances £35k a year may well not be enough whether it is in the form of benefits or wages. There is a number of issues here surrounding the whole thing, mainly the cost of living and the wages on offer especially those that are the national minimum.

So they should get way more than two people in the same area who are on national minimum, the person who isn't working should get more and the people getting paid bum all pay taxes to contribute to that.

Real logical that is.

Also what is concerning is the comments from Cameron about how people should quit complaining about benefits and get a job, he seems ignorant of the fact that unemployment is rising in this country. I agree though that those who are capable of working (and are not in higher education) should work but the jobs need to be available and this isn't always the case.

BUt you think that people who don't have a job should get more than those who do?

[Derbiean]

So they should get way more than two people in the same area who are on national minimum, the person who isn't working should get more and the people getting paid bum all pay taxes to contribute to that.

Real logical that is.



BUt you think that people who don't have a job should get more than those who do?

No but again it isn't as simple as that, undoubtedly some are over paid just as some are under paid, i certainly don't support any idea of people who work should be worser off than those do not (for varying reasons), questions need to be asked as to why there are any cases of benefits of being paid of £35k a year, either reducing or a putting a cap on the limit by itself will not do much good, there are underlying issues that are not being addressed.

Reading through the pdf it mentions a cap on housing benefit, in principle i agree that money for housing should be capped, however if the rents themselves are not capped and the landlords are allowed to continue to charge what they please then obviously the potential for discrepancies will be clear, if rents are capped to housing benefit levels then such a policy would work otherwise the current proposals may do more harm than good.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

No but again it isn't as simple as that, undoubtedly some are over paid just as some are under paid

In a market economy there is no such thing as over or under payment.

Under payment is created when the government takes so much money the lifestyle of a third quartile private sector worker becomes comparable to that of an unemployed person.

[Derbiean]

In a market economy there is no such thing as over or under payment.

Under payment is created when the government takes so much money the lifestyle of a third quartile private sector worker becomes comparable to that of an unemployed person.

When it comes to benefit payments there is such a thing, hell i've even got letters from the housing benefit office stating they either underpaid or overpaid the housing association in question and the next payment would be adjusted accordingly.

[Derbiean]

Not always Stryker trust me and alot of the jobs that are advertised tend to be temporary which is no good if you need to move, even if the governments proposals get implemented they won't have much effect as i see no plan of action regarding living costs and job creation.

[justicar5]

I support the cap. Can't afford the kids? Don't have them.

[Kanaric]

I support the cap. Can't afford the kids? Don't have them.

Agreed.

[Sphere]

$54K pre-tax with no medical costs?

In the US that is a rather good starting position for a someone with a good undergraduate degree. There is welfare and there is faring-well.

[Simon Cashmere]

$54K pre-tax with no medical costs?

In the US that is a rather good starting position for a someone with a good undergraduate degree. There is welfare and there is faring-well.

Depends where. You are not living large in NYC on that money. New Orleans, sure.

I've got no problem with benefits, but my firm philosophical view is - welfare benefits only in return for community work. No work, no benefits. Filling in pot holes, cleaning up parks, painting railway stations or washing buses. If you put something back, it's also good for your self worth too. There is plenty to do for the community, plenty.

The usual opposition to any such plan is to talk about the intellectually impaired man who cannot walk and saying well he cant work. Yeah that's right, but everyone who CAN work should. And that's a lot of people.

I get pretty ***ed off when able bodied young people come up to me in the street begging for money. Way back when, I used to drive taxis, put myself through college. On the way into the base, a beggar asked me for some money. I said, do what I do, get a license to drive cabs. 'Cant afford it' That's ok, Centerlink (our job centre) funds it, they pay. 'Nah I don't like driving'. Right, so do you think I like doing a 12 hour shift in Sydney traffic? But I work for a living, I have a working class work ethic - always have. I've never had the hadnout mentality, but in this country and elsewhere, its a handout bonanza - that's how certain people think they've made it, get on the welfare gravy train.

If it were up to me, the welfare gravy train would pull into the station - all out, all change, and never depart again.