The Tories tried to starve people to death by cutting funding to food banks after that didn't work they will now try to make people live on the poverty line.
The next step will jail time for missing a job on your UJ account.
They need to look at people getting £1000 a month or more housing benefit. It should be capped. Not only is it draining the public purse it drives up rents making it even more difficult for working people.
Housing benefit is already capped. The local housing allowance does exactly that. It restricts the benefit payable to the average of the bottom 30% of rents for a property of the same size.
It would seriously be easier for everyone, both government and citizens, to send the poor unemployed to camps where they are served 3 meals of warm gruel a day. I mean that would actually save money and it would be no less than an existence for the people having to live on potentially £57 a week currently do.
Actually think at what £57 a week gets you. There are no luxuries here on that income. The unemployed are not living better than you as you go off to work in the morning. You should feel privileged that you can actually afford nice things rather than feel bitter that "they have the curtains closed".
It was never intended to provide luxuries. It was set up to provide emergency income for newly unemployed.
If people were to find they can live comfortably on JSA then there would be no incentive to find a job.
It was never intended to provide luxuries. It was set up to provide emergency income for newly unemployed.
If people were to find they can live comfortably on JSA then there would be no incentive to find a job.
You are forgetting one important thing this new round of cuts is not aimed only at the unemployed, But is also aimed at hard working people. Benefits that will be frozen include:
The work-related activity component of employment and support allowance
Jobseeker’s allowance
Local housing allowance
Universal credit
Tax credits
Child benefit
Income support
Benefits that will not be affected include:
Disability living allowance
Personal independence payment
Maternity and paternity pay
Statutory sick pay
Statutory adoption pay
No government will ever risk doing anything that might reduce the value of most voters' biggest asset, so I won't hold my breath.
Its not just the voters asset, it presents a conflict of interest for mps themselves who are as much benefactors of the housing situation. Richard Benyon is a clear cut example of this (his family firm bought into a housing estate in London earlier in the year) but there are others.
Its why nothing related to housing or rents ever picks up traction
It was never intended to provide luxuries. It was set up to provide emergency income for newly unemployed.
If people were to find they can live comfortably on JSA then there would be no incentive to find a job.
Yes, but £57 a week is just a joke. Is that really all people get ?
I doubt that would pay Osborne's daily bar bill in the Commons, let alone for a lunch at the Ivy.
There was no such thing as tax credits when my children were little. We had one wage coming in and I bought own brands to make ends meet, and pay the mortgage.
Yes, but £57 a week is just a joke. Is that really all people get ?
I doubt that would pay Osborne's daily bar bill in the Commons, let alone for a lunch at the Ivy.
You should take a look at expenses claimed by IDS The one that jumped out was the claim for breakfast for £39
maybe as some posters say the housing benefit should be cut and not the jobseekers money ..i didnt know 22 bilion was spent on housing benefit..and buy to let shouldnt be helped by housing benefit money
There was no such thing as tax credits when my children were little. We had one wage coming in and I bought own brands to make ends meet, and pay the mortgage.
i`d never have survived if i couldn`t claim the *predecessor to tax credits, i had two jobs and was out of the house for 14 hours a day doing them,it doesn`t have a fantastic effect on the kids and i wouldn`t repeat that if i had my time over, i`d have stayed on benefits
*family income supplement, which was introduced in 1970.
No, bring back Labour's tax and spend policies, people have short memories. When Labour left office last time the chancellor left a note, "sorry, the pot is empty"
I say no. As is I think the two tier JSA System based on age is unfair as is. Those under 25 should be paid the same rate as over 25's. Not every under 25 has a family to call upon or lives under someone else's roof.
maybe as some posters say the housing benefit should be cut and not the jobseekers money ..i didnt know 22 bilion was spent on housing benefit..and buy to let shouldnt be helped by housing benefit money
Not enough social housing here if the lha is cut here, myself and the kids may end up homeless,in a year already a big shortfall, I have to make up over 100 pounds a month, I am hoping I will get a permanent job and soon, that will make me better off.
No, bring back Labour's tax and spend policies, people have short memories. When Labour left office last time the chancellor left a note, "sorry, the pot is empty"
No short memory here, however demonizing and making more cuts to only 2% of the welfare bill is a huge white elephant, its nothing more than propaganda and political rhetoric that wouldn't even make a dent on the economy.
Yes, but £57 a week is just a joke. Is that really all people get ?
I doubt that would pay Osborne's daily bar bill in the Commons, let alone for a lunch at the Ivy.
The under 25s get that. Over 25 get £72 which is still far too low.
Not enough social housing here if the lha is cut here, myself and the kids may end up homeless,in a year already a big shortfall, I have to make up over 100 pounds a month, I am hoping I will get a permanent job and soon, that will make me better off.
yes i agree we need a million more council houses and decent sized ones not the hamster variety studio flats they have been building recently.. labour didnt build very many in 13 yrs and i dont think they had any excuses as they spent all the money but where did it actually go and when they got kicked out what did the uk have except a load of debts
It was never intended to provide luxuries. It was set up to provide emergency income for newly unemployed.
If people were to find they can live comfortably on JSA then there would be no incentive to find a job.
It's not about living comfortably though is it. It's about basics. £57 a week isn't enough to buy food. Water. Gas and electricity. So it's therefor not enough to survive on. Never mind live comfortably.
Gas and electricity cost me £40 a week in the winter (less in the summer obviously) because I don't have double glazing or cavity walls to insulate etc. water rates is £8 a week. So that's £48 gone instantly. Which leaves me £9 a week to pay council tax. Food. Toiletries etc. and a TV licence should I happen to have had a TV before I became unemployed (cue people saying people in that position should sell their TV).
Say I have to go and sign on. The nearest place for me is about 8 miles away. So that's £4 minimum on the bus. So I'm down to £5 to buy food, council tax and TV license.
Then what if I have a job interview that I need to get a bus too?
I obviously understand what you're saying. Don't make it a level of income that means people don't want to look for work because they're living contort ably. But £57 isn't enough to survive on. Never mind live.
Many will have to decide between heating and electricity and food and water. Nobody should have to do that.
The only people who might benefit from welfare are people with children. Single people or a couple are the ones who really have to go without.
This is going to be the standard of debate from those of the right-wing until May2015, just obvious stuff. Derailling the discussion will be the focus of such people.
There was no such thing as tax credits when my children were little. We had one wage coming in and I bought own brands to make ends meet, and pay the mortgage.
... and a TV licence should I happen to have had a TV before I became unemployed (cue people saying people in that position should sell their TV).
Well of course, it is the duty of all unemployed to ensure they eradicate all enjoyment out of life! How else will you make the solvent feel better about themselves?
Comments
The next step will jail time for missing a job on your UJ account.
Housing benefit is already capped. The local housing allowance does exactly that. It restricts the benefit payable to the average of the bottom 30% of rents for a property of the same size.
It was never intended to provide luxuries. It was set up to provide emergency income for newly unemployed.
If people were to find they can live comfortably on JSA then there would be no incentive to find a job.
Who can possibly live comfortably on £57 a week?
That's less than most people's walking about money.
You are forgetting one important thing this new round of cuts is not aimed only at the unemployed, But is also aimed at hard working people. Benefits that will be frozen include:
The work-related activity component of employment and support allowance
Jobseeker’s allowance
Local housing allowance
Universal credit
Tax credits
Child benefit
Income support
Benefits that will not be affected include:
Disability living allowance
Personal independence payment
Maternity and paternity pay
Statutory sick pay
Statutory adoption pay
Its not just the voters asset, it presents a conflict of interest for mps themselves who are as much benefactors of the housing situation. Richard Benyon is a clear cut example of this (his family firm bought into a housing estate in London earlier in the year) but there are others.
Its why nothing related to housing or rents ever picks up traction
Yes, but £57 a week is just a joke. Is that really all people get ?
I doubt that would pay Osborne's daily bar bill in the Commons, let alone for a lunch at the Ivy.
You should take a look at expenses claimed by IDS The one that jumped out was the claim for breakfast for £39
i`d never have survived if i couldn`t claim the *predecessor to tax credits, i had two jobs and was out of the house for 14 hours a day doing them,it doesn`t have a fantastic effect on the kids and i wouldn`t repeat that if i had my time over, i`d have stayed on benefits
*family income supplement, which was introduced in 1970.
No, bring back Labour's tax and spend policies, people have short memories. When Labour left office last time the chancellor left a note, "sorry, the pot is empty"
I think they would just prefer the poor and unemployed to go and starve to death quietly and away from public view.
Not enough social housing here if the lha is cut here, myself and the kids may end up homeless,in a year already a big shortfall, I have to make up over 100 pounds a month, I am hoping I will get a permanent job and soon, that will make me better off.
No short memory here, however demonizing and making more cuts to only 2% of the welfare bill is a huge white elephant, its nothing more than propaganda and political rhetoric that wouldn't even make a dent on the economy.
The under 25s get that. Over 25 get £72 which is still far too low.
yes i agree we need a million more council houses and decent sized ones not the hamster variety studio flats they have been building recently.. labour didnt build very many in 13 yrs and i dont think they had any excuses as they spent all the money but where did it actually go and when they got kicked out what did the uk have except a load of debts
The "next" is in-work benefits, access to healthcare, state pensions and all those other things that only multi-millionaires don't worry about.
To start at the social top would be a problem for the coalition, so they start at the bottom and work their way up. Surely it's obvious now?
It's not about living comfortably though is it. It's about basics. £57 a week isn't enough to buy food. Water. Gas and electricity. So it's therefor not enough to survive on. Never mind live comfortably.
Gas and electricity cost me £40 a week in the winter (less in the summer obviously) because I don't have double glazing or cavity walls to insulate etc. water rates is £8 a week. So that's £48 gone instantly. Which leaves me £9 a week to pay council tax. Food. Toiletries etc. and a TV licence should I happen to have had a TV before I became unemployed (cue people saying people in that position should sell their TV).
Say I have to go and sign on. The nearest place for me is about 8 miles away. So that's £4 minimum on the bus. So I'm down to £5 to buy food, council tax and TV license.
Then what if I have a job interview that I need to get a bus too?
I obviously understand what you're saying. Don't make it a level of income that means people don't want to look for work because they're living contort ably. But £57 isn't enough to survive on. Never mind live.
Many will have to decide between heating and electricity and food and water. Nobody should have to do that.
This is going to be the standard of debate from those of the right-wing until May2015, just obvious stuff. Derailling the discussion will be the focus of such people.
What hardship you had to endure...
Well of course, it is the duty of all unemployed to ensure they eradicate all enjoyment out of life! How else will you make the solvent feel better about themselves?