Is it fair to cap benefits at £500 a week or £26,000 a year?

YES, it will encourage more people to work
57% (1011 votes)
YES, as long as genuine claimants don't lose out
34% (600 votes)
NO, it could end up penalising those who cannot work
5% (91 votes)
NO, too many people will suffer financially as a result
3% (57 votes)
Total votes: 1759

Your Comments

There are millions of people in this country who have worked all their lives for low wages and now minimum pay, bearing in mind it used to be lower than current minimum pay, who have now got to work until they are at least 66 to pay for all the people who never work and the ones who one the right to retire at 50. Why should someone who is not allowed to claim anything ever have to work 40mhours per week for just £247.60 before tax and ni and be told they have to do it for over 50 years of their lives so that some people can only work 25 years or none at all. How come one person can claim £500 per week when another who is working can earn less than £15 and be entitle dto nothing at all. The system we have at the moment dumps on the biggest majority of working tax payers, those on low pay. We are expected, indeed given no chooicein the matter, to pay for everybody at both ends of the scale. I have already worked for 39 years full time, I am now doing two jobs one self employed to make up for the loss of hours at work. At 55 years old and being of entirely English decsent I, like many others, fell that i am being descrimated against for being English and working all my life. I am now tols it is likely that my retirement age will go up again to 68 probablymaking 52 years of paying tax and insurance only to be told i will loose most of what i have paid in for and only get the same pension as someone who works for 35 years. So many of of will have to work for at least 15 years for no benefit to ourselves at all so we can pay someone else double what we are earning not to work?????????

Benefits should be capped at the equivalent of 40 hours at minimum wage. If a working man can cope on it then why can't somone who doesn't work?
For far too long we have been too soft. It's time the belt was tightened.

40 hours @ £6.31 (Minimum wage) = £252.40 per week.  Plus child benefit (max 2 children) if you have more, hard luck, you had them, you pay for them.  That might encourage people to get a job, but £500.00 pounds a week (£2000.00 a month).  I'm sorry if this offends anybody, but thats how I see it.
30 odd years back when I was made redundant,  With 2 young children, I went to the job centre and they told me to mortgage my house and cash in my insurance policies, but no money  I was lucky I got a job the following month.
Now they are calling Old Age Pension a benefit?  I've worked 50 years,with a couple of 1 month breaks, (Made redundant) payed tax & NI al the time, and now the government want to screw me again now I'm retired.  But I'm still paying tax. 
Getting benefits from the government now is far too easy and far too much.  People claiming benefits should have to pass a weekly drugs and alcohol test before they get any benefits.
  What should be done to encourage people back to work is for the government to hire out big warehouses.  Then the people who are claiming out of work or incapacity benefits in that area should have to go the the warehouse every day and clock in, they can take books with them to read, but they have to spend 8 hours there, and for that they get a days benefit, miss a day and they will be deducted a days benefit.  They will soon get bored and find them selves a job.   EASY!

500 per week is far too high, this equates to around £2300.00pcm which grossed up equates to around 40k, in the real world who earns this?  my suggestion would be around £300 pw and then people in expensive areas where we pay their housing can move to cheaper areas, just like we owners have to do if we cannot afford an expensive area,

first class thinking silverhairs.

what about people who earn less than this working full time esp when you factor in tax etc.
At this rate many of us may decide we are better not working then where would the money come from to pay these benefits

yes, as mensioned above min wage x 40 hrs, is the only fair way

I agree with Janash, why should anybody not working get more money than those who go out to work for a minimum wage as set by the goverment? Out of that £ 252.40 they will have to pay tax of £ 14 and NI of £ 13 approx which leaves a take home pay of £ 225.40 out of this they have to rent/mortgage, council tax etc. Both of these are paid for in addition of getting £ 500 benefits. Just how can this seen as fair?