Guest 658- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 660
5% increase this year to benefits 1% to armed forces wages it makes you think.
beer the food of the gods
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
Whilst there is a clear need to visit benefits and ensure that the right people are receiving them and at the right levels it beggars belief that HMRC are doing cosy deals with giant corporations over tax liability, or for that matter just plain failing to collect it.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 658- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 660
Ross you have hit the nail fair and squarely on the head
beer the food of the gods
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I agree - and it is a social injustice as well as a financial blunder of immense proportions.
Why can't the PM insist on HMRC doing their job properly ?
On the DLA side, the recipients of the allowance were always assessed by their Doctor/Consultants; they must have been bad GPs/Consultants if they were fooled so comprehensively - in many cases.
Jean has had to renew her disabled badge just now and it is more complicated than before; she hasn't received it yet, so where ever we go we have to be able to park as near where we want to go as possible, as she can't walk very far; if we can't find anywhere close, we go home again.
If they refuse her the pass, I will fight and appeal as hard as I can, as it will mean she'll have to stay in a lot more than she does now.
You don't get better with kidney failure - unless you get another kidney and how far away that is, no one knows.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Different issues being mixed up here.
We have discussed the different treatment HMRC give big companies compared to small companies elsewhere. This is about the benefits and benefits cap.
The Opposition have shot themselves in the foot by voting the cap down in the Lords, by keeping the matter in the public eye and highlighting LD and Labour attitudes it is doing the Conservatives a world of good in the polls. I am sure Cameron will be pleased, bringing the cap back through The Commons again with all the attendant publicity.
What Labour and some LibDems are doing of course is to say that people can have more than the average household income in benefits. That is simply outrageous. I am with the 36% who think the cap should be lower at £20,000.
The best way to reduce the level of these benefits though is to restrict increase to below inflation year on year, they were going to do that but the LibDems blocked it sadly. Guzzler is right about how wrong it is for benefits to be increased when salaries are depressed and it is not just a matter of the Armed Forces either.
As I already explained, disability benefits are not included in the cap but I do think they should be increased in line with public sector pay at this time which is less than inflation. People should always be better off in work.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Someone needs to tell my brother and his wife that Barry.
Taking home £850 a month, rent of £600; then on top of that, there's gas, electricity telephone, food, water-rates, council-tax, road-tax for his small car, petrol for it and of course insurance. It simply can't be done.
Every month he's in the s**t, only the depth changes. All official people tell him he's not entitled to any benefit. He would be better off with no job at all.
Roger
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
Most of those earning, on or less, than the average wage, are only surviving because they are living, in near poverty conditions.
Many are single and living with parents, many are living in communal overcrowded housing.
This capping will throw more out onto our streets.
So your answer is to cap support and bring many down, to a level of near poverty?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i don't think the cap will drag people into poverty, 500 quid a week should be enough for anyone to live on.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Pull the other one Gary.
People 'on' or even many 'under' the average wage - 'only surviving because they are living, in near poverty conditions' Utter and complete tripe.
I know many people on the average household income and many well under that, who I advise, so I know their circumstances in great detail and are far from living in 'near poverty conditions'.
How many of them go abroad every year for holidays? plenty do and good luck to them - they smoke and drink, have flat screen tvs, pay for Sky packages and so on. You insult the vast majority of people who have decent hard working lives and are on or under average household income to suggest they are living in poverty and that those on benefits should have an entitlement to more than them.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Although my brother is in the brown sticky stuff and earns less than average, I do believe that £500 per week should help keep people well above poverty.
He would love to earn, let alone receive in benefits, that level of income.
Roger
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Roger.
Do you also believe your son would get this figure of £500 per week, should he need to receive this kind of support? I hope he never has to find out.
BarryW.
I am sure you are correct in knowing people that are coping with the situation and I also say good luck to them.
I should have said some are struggling and not most, my mistake, I do appologise.
I was referring to those that are not as fortunate, the ones that you don't believe even exist.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - do not misrepresent what I have said. I have never said that 'those not as fortunate' do not exist. I was simply putting you right over that wildly silly claim about people on average household incomes. Many people do struggle but not everyone struggling could possibly be described as 'living in or near poverty'. Many people earning below national average incomes may be struggling but that is nothing to do with poverty, more to do with maintaining a particular lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. Those who are genuinely in real poverty, that means unable to afford shoes, not Sky, unable to afford food, not cigarettes, unable to afford rent, not an annual holiday.... true poverty, that is very rare in this country, which is not to say it does not exist but it is rare. Those being squeezed most are those on middle incomes and are having to struggle so to describe the people 'on or under' annual household income as you originally did as being in near poverty conditions is actually an insult to those who really are living in 'near poverty' or actual poverty. A cap at the level of the national average income leaves no-one in poverty and seeing the reforms will make it more worthwhile for them to work they will, at last, have a way out of benefits - but its up to them.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
It's my younger brother Gary, not my son, but no matter.
He would love to take home half that £500 per week. To say that those on benefits of £500 a week are in poverty is just wrong, they can't be - if they are, they're wasting it.
Roger
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barryw,i live on well below £500 a week,but not complaining.but would like to see that amount every week,at the me personly only picking up 1/5 of that a week.i can see garys point evan if you cant,or evan rogers younger brother is getting more than me.
Guest 700- Registered: 11 Jun 2010
- Posts: 2,868
It should be quite adequate, as Howard said.
It certainly won't drag people into poverty.
---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
Roger, I hope your brother has applied for rent and council tax rebate whether he qualifies I would not know but worth a try.
Barry, my daughter survives on her low income because I pay nearly all our household bills out of my pensions and she has never ever had a foreign holiday unless Cornwall counts. I bet you would hate trying to live on what she earns a week, no more of those expensive meals out unless you were a guest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
But Jan it sound as if she is not getting the average national household income then... that is the while point - the suggestion that people on that level of income are 'struggling in or near poverty' and the claim that the government is wrong to cap benefits at that level. A cap of £25,000 on benefits is about £36,000 gross salary equivalent.
I know many people on that kind of income who live quite well and do go on holidays, enjoy meals out etc. In fact I have seen someone today like that who earns a fair bit less than the cap.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I have just had a very good chat with the Benefits Manager at DDC and have been advised that the Nationally-set level of income that people are expected to live on - after paying their rent and council tax, is £105 per week. That figure is set by the Government - the last Government or this one I have no idea.
This is supposed to be enough to pay the gas, electric, telephone and water-rates, food bills, car-related expenses (road-tax, insurance, maintenance - including MOT), petrol, TV licence etc.
£105 a week ! Having a laugh aren't they ? So who gets the £25,000 in benefits being bandied about ? It can't go all on child allowances can it ?
There's something wrong somewhere.
Roger
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
I actually find myself agreeing with you Barry, where I disagree is I think the cap has been set too high. A family should be able to live comfortably on £350.00 per week. If you have found yourself out of work it is surely sensible that you reign in your expenditure, have the Sky disconnected saving up to £45.00 per month. Cut out the smoking and drinking, its not necessary, buy less expensive food, cut up the stupid credit cards that can make you poor for the rest of your lives and if you don't need the car for work and have a garage, lay it up until things improve.
Finally just because you have had a good high paid job doesn't mean you are above doing taxi driving, working in a hotel or pub or emptying the bins, work is work irrespective of what your profession is.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
£105 per person = £5460 a year, they must all be living in a very expensive area of London with several children and I assume also getting disability benefit of some kind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
