Bishops block the benefits cap.

[Vagabond]

£6.08 per hour is no longer a liveable wage for a UK worker..

 

Are people here just to exist then without any quality in their life whatsoever?

 

That sums it up, as a nation we have paid ourselves too much for years, on top of which many have borrowed in order to live a life-style way beyond their means, and the chickens are coming home to roost.

 

"Quality of life" is about to suffer a sharp down-turn.

[Ken L]

Therefore this cap is a change of contractual obligation without agreement from all parties bound by contract.

This breeches the Treaty of Rome which governs all contracts.

 

No no no no NO.

 

There is no contract. NI is not an insurance scheme and it never has been. You DO NOT get back what you pay in, nor should you expect to.

NI is and always has been a second stream in Income Tax. It is not ring fenced in any way for social provisions, it is simply income for the exchequer.

 

What you get paid via the Social Security system is not what someone arbitrarily decides is the minimum you can live on it is set by parliament and informed by both the treasury and input from various lobby groups.

If parliament decides to change the law so that there is a cap then there will be a cap.

[Now there's a right un.]

No no no no NO.

 

There is no contract. NI is not an insurance scheme and it never has been. You DO NOT get back what you pay in, nor should you expect to.

NI is and always has been a second stream in Income Tax. It is not ring fenced in any way for social provisions, it is simply income for the exchequer.

 

What you get paid via the Social Security system is not what someone arbitrarily decides is the minimum you can live on it is set by parliament and informed by both the treasury and input from various lobby groups.

If parliament decides to change the law so that there is a cap then there will be a cap.

 

 

 

National Insurance is not contractual??? So you are not paying for provision of healthcare or benefit then?

 

A payment for Insurance cover, whether through government or private sector, is contractual insofar that as long as payments are made the insurer is obligated to provide the cover. To refuse to provide cover or change the terms without mutual agreement is a breach of contract.

 

Of course you do not get back what you pay in but in time of need you get paid what LAW states you need to be paid for a decent existence for as long as necessary. What YOU are paid is decided upon by LAW.

 

Parliament decides to Cap there will be a cap....so basically whatever Government does you will take on the chin even if it destroys your quality of life.

I am glad that not all in the UK think as you do or else my family might be living in a Victorian workhouse.

 

A friend of mine who earned £62,000 per annum gross lost his job before Christmas.

As he had worked for over 30 years paying his NI continuously and has a family he receives around £430.00 per week in benefits, that's for everything.

 

Do you begrudge him that?

 

 

What we are talking about is the fact that Government is trying to rewrite terms without public approval.

If you break it down also you will see the public being fed BS to allow these changes to happen unopposed.

 

Good for the Bishops and the Lords. They actually keep Governments in check.

[Ken L]

National Insurance is not contractual??? So you are not paying for provision of healthcare or benefit then?

 

Damn. Just for a moment there, I thought you were getting it.

 

It's not about fair. Life ain't fair.

 

Edit: "£62,000 per annum gross" - and failed to make any personal financial provision for himself or his family. Just what sort of reaction do you think your story is likely to provoke ?

Surely not sympathy.....

 

£430.00 per week in benefits is £22,446.00 a year.

Add a half to that to get a gross salary approximation and you're looking at receiving the equivalent of the income from a £33.5k a year job - Gratis.

Do you think that's sustainable ?

It's certainly a lot more than I earn.

 

How does £22,446.00 a year in benefits relate to the NI (which you seem to believe will cover the bill) paid by your friend on his £62k salary ?

Will what he paid in over 30 years cover the provision of benefits and pensions until he and his wife die ?

How do you think that relates to the national budget when the average salary is in the £25k range and NI contributions are correspondingly smaller ?

Edited January 27, 2012 by Ken L

[Now there's a right un.]

Damn. Just for a moment there, I thought you were getting it.

 

It's not about fair. Life ain't fair.

 

Edit: "£62,000 per annum gross" - and failed to make any personal financial provision for himself or his family. Just what sort of reaction do you think your story is likely to provoke ?

Surely not sympathy.....

 

£430.00 per week in benefits is £22,446.00 a year.

Add a half to that to get a gross salary approximation and you're looking at receiving the equivalent of the income from a £33.5k a year job - Gratis.

Do you think that's sustainable ?

It's certainly a lot more than I earn.

 

How does £22,446.00 a year in benefits relate to the NI (which you seem to believe will cover the bill) paid by your friend on his £62k salary ?

Will what he paid in over 30 years cover the provision of benefits and pensions until he and his wife die ?

How do you think that relates to the national budget when the average salary is in the £25k range and NI contributions are correspondingly smaller ?

 

 

 

 

 

LIFE ISN'T FAIR. THIS IS WHY NATIONAL INSURANCE WAS INTRODUCED. TO MAKE IT FAIR.

The 1948 creation of the Welfare state was to address a terrible inbalance in society.

------------------------------

1. He didn't provide extra income cover because he was already covered through NI. Why pay twice?

 

Had he provided his own care then his NI payment were for nothing.

 

2. NI isn't singular as it is a combination of everyones' credits.

3. Irrespective of how much he paid over 30 years he still paid for his entitlement.

4. Of course it is sustainable. Government just have to honour their agreement.

5. The terms of welfare provision are that you receive them for as long as you need them.

6. If you earn less than the minimum LAW states you need then you should be asking why that is so.

 

If enough people start asking why you might get better wages.

 

 

For you to bemoan a Man or anyone else who has paid their dues and now needs help which is received at a greater level than your current income makes you very short sighted indeed.

 

 

You should understand this better.

 

 

Ask yourself this:

 

You have a 60" Dogs nuts do anything LCD TV.

 

You, over the course of several/many years, make payment just in case your 60" Dogs nuts LCD TV breaks down.

When you start paying they guarantee you like for like replacement.

 

3 Years after you have begun the contract your TV explodes. You expect a 60" Dogs nuts TV replacement as was promised.

 

The Insurer states, hard luck old Boy. We re-wrote the contract and you're only entitled to a 24" basic----and they still take the payments at the same amount as before for your cover.

 

Take it on the chin do you?

[Steve Walker]

It isn't an insurance scheme, it never was, the "premiums" were never invested and there is no link between what the scheme takes in and what it pays out. Nor is what people get out of it linked (state pension apart) to what they have paid in. Current payments come out of current revenue, and it is massively in the red. If it were an insurance scheme, it would have been closed down by now and the directors would be in prison.

 

We don't have the kind of system you think we should have, and the changes needed to make it like that would make these look like a storm in a teacup. In an ideal world, it would work more like you think it should, but getting from here to there is not possible.

[snakey1]

I thought the £26K figure was the national average wage, not the minimum you need to live on. personally I think if you've put nothing into the system then you should only be entitled to the bare minimum back out certainly not anywhere near £26K (no matter how many kids you have afterall that was your choice). Those who have put in should get more out but there has to be limits and to be honest £26K seems to be quite a reasonable one.

Edited January 27, 2012 by snakey1

[Steve Walker]

£26,000 is £500 a week, roughly the median full time wage. That means that half the people who work full time earn less than that and half earn more. A single person with no kids earning that much would take home £385.43 a week after deductions. Someone with kids would get child benefit and some tax relief. A couple, both in work, earning that much split evenly between them would take home ~ £431 a week.

[big_cod]

Dont worry lads they are thinking about bringing back the workhouses if people werent being ripped off with what they basicly need in society to live like electricty ,gas, pertrol etc they would need less to live on youve heard of fuel povery that is only the tip of the iceberg those things are whats crippling this country and pusshing up costs to the man in the street the goverment should be adressing it but no they are targetting the majority of people who struggling not all scroungers but they get tarred with the same brush some people work hard allthere lives paid the max stamp and hugh amounts of income tax if they get made redundant or had to finish work because of ill health they should get help not to treated as scroungers you got earning related and period of time years ago till you got back to work then the tories abolished it in the 80ss they dont beleive any welfare or free health care if they had there way you pay for the lot victorian values if you have it just fine if you havent huck you.

 

paul.

Edited January 27, 2012 by big_cod

[Steve Walker]

Most people who have been made redundant are on nothing like this amount of money. If they were cutting across the board I could understand how people are saying that it isn't fair, but this is a minority of claimants getting much more than everyone else who claims.