Are you pleased Osborne is introducing a benefit cap?

[New Labour Voter]

"Chancellor tells Tory conference in Birmingham that the cap on benefits will ensure no unemployed family can receive more money than families who go out to work"

Is it a good idea, is £26k still to high?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/george-osborne-cap-welfare-payments

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8041384/Conservative-Party-Conference-George-Osborne-announces-benefit-cap.html
£26k equates to £35k before tax. The cap is far to high I think.

 

[Rob Roy]

Seems too high to me but just wait till you hear the screams of anguish from all those who have never worked and lived on benefits for years. To those of us who have worked the screams will be music to our ears.

 

[Sarah]

I think its a good idea in principle. Benefits should always be a stop gap but because the system is flawed, it is too easy for people to just live on benefits. I know its not easy to get a job these days and I do sympathise but equally, work should be rewarded properly as an incentive to motivate this country - far too many depressed and lethargic people unfortunately who get stuck in a rut, and who need the government to help provide a better system to turn it around. Benefits should always be there for those who need it but should someone earn more on benefits than someone who works? Never.

 

[The Bricklayer]

Its a start.

 

[one shot]

I'm with you NLV. The majority of those who actually work for a living in this country earn nowhere near £26k a year BEFORE tax - never mind after.

Georgie boy needs to come into the real world and set the benefits cap at the minimum wage - that'll make the buggers "get on their bike and look for work"

 

[Parsnipsnapper]

Yes, at long last and glad to see child benefit changes too.

 

[Cat Lady]

of course it's too high.

they should get below the minimum wage for 2 adults.

otherwise there truly is no incentive to go out and work, who would blame them sitting round watching jeremy kyle all day if you're effectively being paid for it???

 

[MYRTEL]

Leave the ordinary person alone - when the MPs and the Bankers have had their wings clipped - like a few in prison - then and only then will i ever support cutbacks for the ordinary person.
The reason Britain is second rate is because their is no moral standard set from the top. Why should rich MPs chip away at the ordinary man while at the same time line their own pockets. Its wrong and can never be justified but sadly many Brits - themselves working people - still want to hit the poor and allow the politicians and bankers to carry on.

 

[pazzerhead]

great news,single mum next who go out of their way to have kid purely to get a council flat,there is someone like that i know,she deliberatly got pregnant to get DSS(housing benefit),plus other benefits,her boyfriend gets benefits to,both of them are a couple of lazy tossers,i will have no sympathy to such people who lose such a luxury-there is plenty of other people out there who get a job and pay their way in life.
so long as the truly desperate don't get shafted i'm all for it

 

[guiri]

It's a start and the amount will probably not change, thus in time, bringing the overall level down.

The average weekly wage is about £500.

It should not pay not to work should it?

 

[Guyzers]

I'm fairly neutral. I'm pleased because this is not the attack on the destitute that i've been worried about (I live in a very welfare dependent area and wasn't looking forward to the upsurge in crime) and it seems likely that simplifying the welfare system can save money. I'm interested to know how many people the cap will effect. I think that much of the benefit paid out, especially that section of the claimant population who get over 26k a year, is housing benefit. This should help put a stop to the current system whereby private landlords fleece the benefits fund but the devil will be in the detail. I can only see this effecting doleys who live in high rent areas like London, hopefully the rents will decrease and there will be enough affordable housing for people but i wouldn't have thought so. Perhaps East Durham will get an influx of benefit claimants, we've plenty of empty houses up here.

The problem with it will be the unintended consequences. As Osbourne isn't going after the sick with his policy i wouldn't be surprised if more people try to sign on as sick. This whole definition of 'family income' will also encourage the trend whereby couples claim to be living apart, and the council or whoever it is winds up paying two sets of housing benefit instead of one. I know a few couples who still seem to be all over each other in the pub and spend nights with each other even though they live apart so far as the authorities are concerned.

As far as I'm concerned i'd love to be able to sit and pontificate about what a bunch of scroungers benefit claimants are but reality stops me. I was in the office today, we have two job opportunities where i work for £6 an hour positions boxing food up. Four hundred and thirty applications so far and they only advertised it last week.

 

[Marc likes Mearkats]

Well we all know what that means then don't we

Are wages are going up to make poor people who WORK better off, NO, the benefits are going to be cut for the ones that don't, no-matter how you gloss over it, its going to be a cut and not a raise.

In Britain today we penalise the poor who work, tomorrow we're going to penalise the ones who don't work as well,,, ITS A CON.

I've no sympathy for the idle bugger's who don't and won't work through shear idleness, but for those who do go to work its going to make no difference.