Heskey2011 Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Hi I've worked in the gov funding benifits sector for years now and one thing i can tell you is that pretty much the only families this will effect are those with more than 5 kids. Any family with 5+ kids will loose the extra money they would have got per person over 5. or over the 26 / 28k The others this will effect are those living in central London, basically thier benifits / housing allowance will not pay the rent and therefore we're basically going to see lots of Kids changing schools and moving away from their local areas. What the Govenment is actually doing is social economic clensing of the richest area in our country.
Heskey2011 Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 One other thing, i think that the thing that makes our country great is that we support those who can support themselves, no matter how much money you've got or where you're from everyone gets looked after. Considering the world wide impact our armies have had in africa, india, and all over the old empire, i think we kind of owe it to the rest of the world, let em all in that's what i say, plenty of room in Yorkshire.
Zingari Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 I want to have his babies. yeah , and then you'll want a big house and everything else , all at the taxpayer's expense you fookin scrounger
Saxondale Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Every time I walk to work I walk past agencies that *always* have quite a few jobs advertised. They aren't great jobs, they probably don't pay much more than staying on benefits, or maybe less - but there are jobs out there. Herein lies the problem. The way the benefit system works appears to make it not particularly advantageous to do low paid work instead of claiming the full suite of benefits. This is why it needs to change.
Master Fox Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Hi I've worked in the gov funding benifits sector for years now and one thing i can tell you is that pretty much the only families this will effect are those with more than 5 kids. Any family with 5+ kids will loose the extra money they would have got per person over 5. or over the 26 / 28k The others this will effect are those living in central London, basically thier benifits / housing allowance will not pay the rent and therefore we're basically going to see lots of Kids changing schools and moving away from their local areas. What the Govenment is actually doing is social economic clensing of the richest area in our country. NICE
Captain... Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Herein lies the problem. The way the benefit system works appears to make it not particularly advantageous to do low paid work instead of claiming the full suite of benefits. This is why it needs to change. These jobs will pay much less than 26k, as we have established, so setting this cap at 26k will not change the fact that it is better to stay on benefits than take a low paid job.
Master Fox Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 These jobs will pay much less than 26k, as we have established, so setting this cap at 26k will not change the fact that it is better to stay on benefits than take a low paid job. Is everything under £26k considered 'low paid' ?
Captain... Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Is everything under £26k considered 'low paid' ? No, but everything that is considered low paid is under 26k.
Jon the Hat Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Does this mean anyone who pays more than £26k in tax is actually raising two families? I think it might. Or it might be the beer I had at lunch.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Does this mean anyone who pays more than £26k in tax is actually raising two families? I think it might. Or it might be the beer I had at lunch. It does, and it also means that you are entitled to make them fight each other in an amphitheatre. Lions cost extra though. This country etc
Captain... Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Does this mean anyone who pays more than £26k in tax is actually raising two families? I think it might. Or it might be the beer I had at lunch. Yes and no, if you contribute 26k in one family receives 26k, then you could say you are suporting them, but in reality your tax is split up into pots, so you could also say that if you pay 26k in taxes you have bought a car for a politician. You also have to consider that the majority of households don't need 26k in benefits so if you did pay 26k in taxes you could be paying for 2 or 3 extra families, or 1 big family in a wealthy area. So if you were going to make them fight I would suggest taking 2 families from the estates in Northern communities (think Shameless), rather than the 1 large family from London.
Jon the Hat Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Yes and no, if you contribute 26k in one family receives 26k, then you could say you are suporting them, but in reality your tax is split up into pots, so you could also say that if you pay 26k in taxes you have bought a car for a politician. You also have to consider that the majority of households don't need 26k in benefits so if you did pay 26k in taxes you could be paying for 2 or 3 extra families, or 1 big family in a wealthy area. So if you were going to make them fight I would suggest taking 2 families from the estates in Northern communities (think Shameless), rather than the 1 large family from London. Ooh tough call. A car for that Dianne Abbot or a spacious home and SKY+HD for a bunch of underclass chavs. Can I keep my money instead?
Master Fox Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 No, but everything that is considered low paid is under 26k. Errrr, ok? That was my question
Captain... Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Errrr, ok? That was my question No it wasn't you asked if everything under 26k is low paid, and I don't think it is, I think a salary of around 20k is not low paid, (except in London due to they higher cost of living) A salary can be under 26k and not be low paid, but a low paid salary is under 26k, so 26k on benefits is going to be more desirable and a disincentive to work, compared to taking a low paid job. Of course you can't compare the 2 directly because a low paid worker will still be eligible for benefits, to bring their income up to the minimum required for a basic standard of living. This is also part of the problem, if someone on benefits of 26k is offered a job earning 20k why would they take it? In fact it would be nonsense to take it unless they still had the benefits to make up the difference, which they may do, but they may not understand that, this taking the route of subsidised working, but this is better than a career on benefits.
cambridgefox Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Herein lies the problem. The way the benefit system works appears to make it not particularly advantageous to do low paid work instead of claiming the full suite of benefits. This is why it needs to change. I think they should subsidise child care,allowing people to work for lower paid jobs without getting clobbered,if someone chooses to stay at home with the kids they choose a lifestyle with a lower income,although my mindset thinks everyone wants to work but we know this isnt true,however it was my choice to have kids and i am lucky to get child allowance but i dont get any family tax credits which i dont really mind.
Daggers Posted 28 January 2012 Posted 28 January 2012 I don't get £26k and I work. I don't know what your problem is, a few years ago you were saying that we needed mass immigration to fill jobs because the white working class were thick, lazy useless wankers. No I didn't - I said most people are cvnts, should be sterilised at birth. This is not because they are white or lazy - it is because almost everyone in the universe aside from me is a cvnt. Especially people living in Milton Keynes.
Rincewind Posted 30 January 2012 Posted 30 January 2012 http://www.citizenseye.org/2012/01/30/half-a-million-disabled-people-may-lose-benefit/
danny. Posted 30 January 2012 Posted 30 January 2012 http://www.citizense...y-lose-benefit/ If those that will be affected are genuinely disabled that isn't good at all. If they are one of the 5-6 'disabled' people I know of that claim lots of benefits for their disability, but who can also play football and spend 8 hours on their feet shopping and drinking, then that's great news.
Saxondale Posted 30 January 2012 Posted 30 January 2012 I think they should subsidise child care,allowing people to work for lower paid jobs without getting clobbered,if someone chooses to stay at home with the kids they choose a lifestyle with a lower income,although my mindset thinks everyone wants to work but we know this isnt true,however it was my choice to have kids and i am lucky to get child allowance but i dont get any family tax credits which i dont really mind. Yes, exactly. I was shocked to learn what my child-bearing friends have to pay for childcare.
Jon the Hat Posted 1 February 2012 Posted 1 February 2012 Ahem. Cut out the beer, ciggies and tobacco and you find, what about £82 a week? Hmm??
Guest MattP Posted 1 February 2012 Posted 1 February 2012 Includes food and household goods, 24cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large pouch of tobacco What on earth can you say when you read stuff like this? Benefits actually became a lifestyle choice at some point.
Jon the Hat Posted 1 February 2012 Posted 1 February 2012 Also thought that the comment about the market for his skills drying up 10 years ago was brilliant. Couldn't be arsed to learn something new hey? Well why bother when Labour will look after you for a vote.
z-layrex Posted 1 February 2012 Posted 1 February 2012 Also thought that the comment about the market for his skills drying up 10 years ago was brilliant. Couldn't be arsed to learn something new hey? Well why bother when Labour will look after you for a vote. People like him should adapt or die tbh.
Parafox Posted 1 February 2012 Posted 1 February 2012 26,000 a year is the max anyone would get. It's the minimum amoint in benefits that is more of a concern. My daughter lives alone and gets JSA £55 a week (£2860 pa or just over a tenth of the proposed max allowance). She currently can't afford to pay for gas and electricity and food. She also has to pay water rates and house insurance, it certainly comes down to "eat or heat" for her. She has had to give up her TV as she can't afford the licence fee. (We intend to subsidise her for this) She uses charity shops for the few clothes she buys. She has a PAYG phone but is for incoming calls only as she never has credit. Granted, she is on housing benefit but without it she would be homeless She can't live with us for reasons I'm not going to disclose here It's not all high living for those on benefits. I agree it needs a review but there are plenty on benefits who do not get close to 26,000 a year
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.