esa limit to 1 year

[Werner M]

Hello

 

Thanks for your comments. Yes I was trying to make a point of saying that there are people out there that don't need any benefit at all. They have their own resources. It is criminal that this individual can 'invest the whole of his OAP for over 20 years. that total without interest would amount to some £90,000 so far!!

 

That on top of his AA and War Pension (incidentally he suffered PTSD - something that happens today to 'ordinary' people and they get on with their life).

 

Of course there are those that every £1 matters, but think of the increase they could have if all benefits and pensions were means tested?

 

£102 pw? Yes I could live on that a week. In fact currently the minimum that somebody would get at 60 + is £132.60 pw, not £102.

No rent, Council Tax etc - just food heat, light and general living costs - £132 pw - yes certainly - I happen to do so!.

 

Gemma

 

....Of course, but can you live on that sort of money for a long Period of Time ???? ( maybe 2-3 years) ??

 

Werner.

[antone]

Presumably those suggesting a withdrawal of contributory benefits would accept a commensurate decrease in Class 1 and 2 NI contributions?

 

The vouchers idea is morally repulsive. It happens in many states in the USA, albeit in a slightly more sophisticated way. People on the restricted benefits available to them are issued with special debit cards that are loaded with credit each month. What they can and can't buy with that credit is often restricted, generally to basic food. So tough luck if you need to brush your teeth, shave, deal with menstrual periods, clean your house or wipe your a***. It's a system that degrades both the people who have to suffer it and the people who advocate it.

 

In my JCP training, lo, back in the day, it was quite clear that people were given money for several good reasons. First off, there is the stigma attached to claiming benefits, and having cash in hand helps to avoid at least some of this. Being dependent on benefits is not generally beneficial to one's mental health, and if we have an aim that we'd like people on benefits to return to work at some point, we have a vested interest in not further screwing with their heads. So they are paid small sums of money with the expectation that they manage it themselves, just like people who work, because we want them to think the same way as people who work.

 

And we absolutely, 100% do not want benefit claimants to start thinking of themselves as second-class citizens who society regards as incapable of managing their own money.

 

Arbitrarily depriving people of dignity will not reduce the benefits bill in the long term. I've been out of the loop for a few months now. Is someone seriously proposing this?

[loan_ranger]

I've only seen the suggestion on issuing vouchers being proposed by some of the bigotted morons commenting on the Daily Heil on-line. I'm addicted to nicotine and take great offense that the morons wish to deprive me of my only remaining vice on the grounds that those who can afford to smoke are receiving too much in benefits. I agree that the £15 a week I spend on rolling 'baccy is a lot, however considering that around 12 out of the 15 £s is excise and VAT going back to the government this makes the cost to the taxpayer of subsidising my "habit" fairly insignificant.

[loan_ranger]

OOPS! Sorry, I seem to have strayed

[Kicking-Us-Off-ESA]

Good point thou lone R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We must have something in life we aint got much else so why not have a smoke. lol

[rightsforme]

Presumably those suggesting a withdrawal of contributory benefits would accept a commensurate decrease in Class 1 and 2 NI contributions?

 

The vouchers idea is morally repulsive. It happens in many states in the USA, albeit in a slightly more sophisticated way. People on the restricted benefits available to them are issued with special debit cards that are loaded with credit each month. What they can and can't buy with that credit is often restricted, generally to basic food. So tough luck if you need to brush your teeth, shave, deal with menstrual periods, clean your house or wipe your a***. It's a system that degrades both the people who have to suffer it and the people who advocate it.

 

In my JCP training, lo, back in the day, it was quite clear that people were given money for several good reasons. First off, there is the stigma attached to claiming benefits, and having cash in hand helps to avoid at least some of this. Being dependent on benefits is not generally beneficial to one's mental health, and if we have an aim that we'd like people on benefits to return to work at some point, we have a vested interest in not further screwing with their heads. So they are paid small sums of money with the expectation that they manage it themselves, just like people who work, because we want them to think the same way as people who work.

 

And we absolutely, 100% do not want benefit claimants to start thinking of themselves as second-class citizens who society regards as incapable of managing their own money.

 

Arbitrarily depriving people of dignity will not reduce the benefits bill in the long term. I've been out of the loop for a few months now. Is someone seriously proposing this?

 

Yes they are seriously looking at this so it is a high possibility which is seriously inhumane and degrading. Cameron has already stated that he needs to change the laws in order to change the system, hence the 5 - 10 year plan, which obviously means that current laws will not allow him to implement the actual plans he has and probably why he is keeping quiet on the actual details of what he has planned. All we know at the present is that he intends to change it but not any real details of how and when this will effect us.

 

The article was in the Guardian in July with the title heading Ministers consider scheme to hand out food vouchers to unemployed

and quotes the following "The government is considering plans to distribute food vouchers to people on the dole as part of a wider drive to empower charities to supplement the support provided by the welfare state.Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, has given his provisional backing to JobCentre Plus staff handing out vouchers that can be exchanged for food parcels."

 

For the full article see http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/02/ministers-food-vouchers-unemployed

[rachmac83]

Gemstar,

 

I apologise for belated reply but i have been so busy this weekend i haven't has a chance to get on.

 

your comment was based to all contributory benefits not just a pension, and the threshold for other benefits is £102.00,

which would mean no entitlement to benefits if you your household income is above this.

I am not considering children in this as that would be a different type of benefit.

 

so an income of 102 between two people is supposed to be sufficient that means no housing benefit or council tax benefit, those of us with mortgages don't get HB we do get payments towards the interest but again if your income is over the threshold you get you guessed it nothing.

 

basically if you have a partner who works your expected to live off their wage.

 

If the idea of the welfare state was to protect all from the cradle to the grave, it has seriously failed im sure this this is not what William Beveridge had in mind!

 

Rightsforme,

 

these 'food parcels' i am assuming that these will be in addition to benefits if not this is disgusting we should not be made to feel we have to live off handouts that would be seriously degrading and detrimental to all of our mental health, plus how does this allow for special diets, how are we supposed to plan our meals surly that would be against human rights don't we have the right to plan our diets what happened to equality last time i looked the country was pc crazy isn't this essentially discrimination?