Immoral to cap benefits at £2000 per month?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Mikal, Nov 18, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I think Sarah Teather is living in a world of her own.

    Benefits Cap 'Immoral And Socially Divisive' - Yahoo! News UK

    This is something (sensible benefits cap per household) I've been pushing for many years on here.

    I'm on a reasonable earner and the net take home is under the cap of £2000 (£500 per week).

    So far as I'm concerned, bring it on.


    What think the rest of you?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Negligent-Discharge

    Negligent-Discharge LE Book Reviewer

    No matter how many kids they have a family CAN live on £2000 a month. It might not be perfect, but will keep them in Pot-Noodles, 48" Plasma screens, scratchcards and White Cider.
     
  3. Sorry, but my mother told me never to discuss anything with poor people.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Benefits=Bought Votes.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  5. We let the workshy bastards vote? That's fuckin' outrageous.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. 200 quid a month on benefits?! Jesus, no wonder a lot of people don't want to work!
     
  7. The really high benefit bills are nearly all housing benefit paid to "dodgy" landlords in london by council departments in london that either have no choice,dont care or got a gift to set it up.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. I see no problem with this, glad to see councils are making plans to relocate those living in costly rented accommodation to cheaper accommodation. Its not a right to live in central London or some of the more desirable parts of any city if its being paid for by the tax payer.
     
  9. It's far too high, no incentive at all. Punishing them by giving them take home £24k?


    Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Agreed, it is insane that we have work-shy layabouts living in central London at our expense; while the people who work there have to commute huge distance because they cannot afford London prices.

    The only problems with the cap are that it is too high and that it does not take subsidised council/housing association accommodation into account.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  11. I've always thought maximum benefits should be less than the minimum wage take home amount. However some on here have challenged me for being so harsh.

    Having had to claim benefits once or twice, I don't think the system in any way encourages claimants to get out and find employment. It seems to be targeted at a very low level, treating all who have to use the benefits system as simpletons incapable of looking after themselves.
     
  12. £2000 seems more than reasonable.

    If they want to breed like rabbits, they can pay for them. Is this £2000 tops, or is their likely to be little 'extras' still available to bring the unemployed, never worked familie sup to their expected £50,000 a year and £1mill mansion lifestyle?

    As Mikal says, total income for a benefit receiving family (excluding things like child benefit and and what not that working families can recieve (different discussion) should not excede what minimum wage family could reasonably expect to brng home.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. **** them. There's a good few unemployed out there that need support but there are far, far more that stroll around in Mckenzie trackies taking the piss.
    Make them all go and live in Hartlepool. Shift them from their London lives. That includes the immigrant chancers too. Life on benefits shouldn't be the norm and it shouldn't be easy. People on benefits should be aching to get a job. The mollycoddle mindset needs to be destroyed.
    This policy is a decent start at it.
    The LibDem lettuce leaf needs to STFU and let the govt sort it out.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  14. I prefer the Austrian system (where the maximum tax rate is about 35%): if someone loses their job, then for 6 months their benefits = 80% of their previous salary. After that period of time it drops rapidly to the minimum wage.

    This has the benefit (pardon the pun) of recognising the money that the claimant has paid into the system, and at the same time allowing the person the chance to find a new job without the stress of losing their home, car and taking the kids out of private school (if they are in private school).

    Funnily enough the number of Austrians who make benefits a lifestyle/career choice are extremely limited. Likewise unemployed people don't expect or demand to be housed in the same streets as multi-millionaires.

    In Hungary, no matter how much you pay into the system, on losing your job the maximum payout is just over 100 quid. Per month (which is nice if you are paying several thousand per month into the system).
     
    • Like Like x 3
  15. On the other hand the benefits tenant is entitled to be paid housing benefit till they are two months in arrears of rent. Which means the benefits tenants simply steal the first two months housing benefits. Quite a common scam is for them to then move after six months so they can scam the next landlord. IE Steal four months housing benefit per year. If private landlords are on such a good deal how come councils and housing associations don't want to be treated the same as private landlords ? IE When Universal Credit comes in no landlord will be entitled to be paid rent directly from benefits. Thus the whole benefits fiddling tenants species will be enabled to steal their housing benefit every month.

    Under the existing system (Blair ideas) if a tenant commits benefits fraud the overpayment is recovered from housing benefit payable to the landlord and the landlord is left to use the **** county court system (if he wishes to waste the money) trying to get the tenant to pay up the accumulating arrears of rent.

    And for landlords of multiple properties the benefits overpayments to fraudulent claimants can also be recovered from the housing benefits of the honest tenants of the same landlord.

    Hence the lady in Stoke on Trent a couple of years ago sending 41 sets of keys back to the Bank and Building Society. She had 17 benefits fiddling tenants and their overpayments being collected against all 41 of her tenants. At a time of dwindling house prices and fixed demands on landlords (Give the poor little ******* a gas safety cert and a smoke detector and fix everything they break .. ) the sums were clear. Go voluntary bankrupt with beneficial interest in the properties and let the bank and building society get on with it.

    IDS has the right ideas. Ever since 1976 when we caught the IRA working lucrative multiple address benefits frauds it has been recognised that a "Reversible tax system" is the better anti fraud measure.

    One smile is that a man recruited to DHSS to develop computerized anti fraud measures in the 80s turns out to have been a long term associate of certain paramilitaries (Yes Thanet and Deal Barracks territory).

    But IDS is poised, albeit on the basis of good theory, to put chaos into practice.

    When UC comes in I could send keys back to the bank for my BTLs. Or I could issue Section 21 notices to evict my tenants. That helps them jump the council housing queue and gets them into a council or housing assn house. That is what I urge in Margate where the council is starting a landlord licensing scheme in the hope of tackling anti social behaviour. If a private landlord has a tenant labelled anto social by the public sector parasites .. Section 21 them and make the ASBOs become council tenants.

    As far as BTLs with benefits tenants go, you'd be better off putting yer money on the gee gees.

    And the fact is the councils are shitting a brick at being made responsible for housing the benefits hordes whilst being impotent to make the hordes pay rent.

    So I wonder if this is why the councils where I have BTLs have tended to circulate emails to private landlords guaranteeing rent payments.

    Personally I am sick to death of losing money subsidizing waster dole families.

    What a life they have. Boiler goes phut (two years old and due to the tenants running it with balance line open) just phone the landlord. That's one year's theoretical profit blown in replacing their boiler. They fiddle dole and get caught again. That's another six months theoretical profit blown as the council recover their fiddled overpayments from me.

    Try it BH before privileging us to your erudite opinions.

    Meanwhile my tenants will still take two holidays per year and run their 7 seater car essential for taking their kids to school.

    £5300 to go through courts for a Section 21 ? Or £800 to have the tenant's arm broken ? Quelle dilemma.

    Or £0 to send the keys back to the bak and tell them to appoint their rent receiver and best of luck getting rent once IDS UC comes in ?
     
    • Like Like x 2