Should benefit payments be increased?

[Green Web 10]

I think they should, a mate of mine has recently lost his job (through no fault of his own), and now has to live on £46.85 per week, but £9.00 of this is taken automatically from his jo seekers allowance because he had to get a loan to pay back the working tax credits they over paid him when he was working, so this leaves £37.85 to live on, minus water rates £7.50 then gas and electric at approx £15 per week leaves only £15.35 per week to buy food clothing and the expense of travel to find work. Surely in 2007 and a wealthy country such as ours this is no way to treat people who are unfortunate to be out of work? virtually living on read and water and been treated like a second class citizen, is it?

 

I only earn £14,000 per annum and i'd be willing to pay more tax to ensure people who are out of work have enough money to live on, would you?

[Green Web 10]

Mods - can you fill in the missing letter.

 

One of the the buttons on my keyoards broke.

 

Thanks

 

Note: Letters added as requested

[Alex C. 10]

Or (in terms of JSA only) base the benefits much more on the amount of NI you've paid in; anyone who's never had a job to pay NI will get low rates, those who have worked/paid NI for years get an increased sum for X weeks before it reverts to the lower rate...

[happylady 10]

Definitely not. We pay enough taxes. What the Government should do instead is look at other ways of saving money, ie not paying family allowance/family tax credit to families of immigrant workers who are still living in their own countries. Also, we should stop paying out family allowance for more than 3 kids in each family.

[Green Web 10]

Or (in terms of JSA only) base the benefits much more on the amount of NI you've paid in; anyone who's never had a job to pay NI will get low rates, those who have worked/paid NI for years get an increased sum for X weeks before it reverts to the lower rate...

 

He's worked for the last 6 years sine he was 18, although not on a massive wage i would of thought it would of een more than this, surely this isn't fair?

[dennistowler 10]

Or (in terms of JSA only) base the benefits much more on the amount of NI you've paid in; anyone who's never had a job to pay NI will get low rates, those who have worked/paid NI for years get an increased sum for X weeks before it reverts to the lower rate...

 

What if you've never paid NI because you've been busy bringing up your children on your own?

 

Everyone is different and there are a whole lot of varied circumstances that result in people being on benefits. I don't think a one size fits all policy is fair. There are people who don't want to be on benefits and try their hardest to get off them whereas others seem to be content to live their life on benefits

[pinklady 10]

no way ... in fact benefits should be cut then maybe people wouldnt happily live off the state for years, get off their backside and earn a living, its just a shame decent people who need help for a brief time get the minimum, yet career scroungers know how to work the system and sit back and wait for the cheques to come.

 

I'm sick of hearing people say they can not afford to work and to cover all the benefits of the state, need to earn over 20K ... for an unskilled layabout????

[brooksy 10]

I suffer with arthritis and need some time off now and again.The ssp is not really enough to live on and given thirty years of tax and ni find this totally unfair.Private loss of earnings cover is great if you can afford them.

[pinklady 10]

What if you've never paid NI because you've been busy bringing up your children on your own?

 

 

National Insurance is automatically paid for you whilst your claiming family allowence (ie ..... raising children)

[cloudybay 17]

National Insurance is automatically paid for you whilst your claiming family allowence (ie ..... raising children)

 

No it isn't. HRP ( Home Responsibilities Protection ) merely reduces the number of years you need in order to qualify for a basic state pension. See here http://www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/atoz/atozdetailed/homeres.asp#what

[happylady 10]

no way ... in fact benefits should be cut then maybe people wouldnt happily live off the state for years, get off their backside and earn a living, its just a shame decent people who need help for a brief time get the minimum, yet career scroungers know how to work the system and sit back and wait for the cheques to come.

 

I'm sick of hearing people say they can not afford to work and to cover all the benefits of the state, need to earn over 20K ... for an unskilled layabout????

 

Totally agree with you. When I was in Lanzarote last week there were 2 blokes from Birmingham staying at our apartments discussing what day they signed on. To be honest I felt like taking a photo and sending it in but seen as I didn't know there names didn't appear to be much point. They were the most abnoxious people that I have every had the unfortunate opportunity to know:rant:

[Ms Macbeth 76]

Why not just give all claimants of any benefits, including state pensions, the minimum wage as if they worked 35 hours a week, and let them pay their own rent/mortgage, council tax, prescriptions, school meals etc. Give people who actually work for minimum/lowish wages increased tax credits. People with severe disabilities would get a premium over and above the basic benefit, which would be payable in or out of work.

 

If all adjustments were done via income tax, and no means testing was carried out for things like housing benefits it would cut the beaurocracy and errors in half, but it would also give incentives to people to work. It would also mean that couples with children would be better off living together and not apart as some choose to do at present if one or both are on benefits. The current benefits system rewards those who at one time would have had to work or starve! Unfortunately, it also seems to penalise those who try and work, but may have periods when they need to claim.