Benefit Caps: Good, bad or indifferent?

[ralphchadkirk]

The Government are proposing to cap benefits at £26,000 (untaxed). This is broadly equivalent to someone paying tax earning over £30,000. However, it is claimed that this will disproportionately affect some people, and force others into poverty.


Discuss!

 

[Nym]

How can anyone getting £26k from the government plead poverty? Because they have an expensive mortgage and would need to move house? Tough s***!

Just because you rent somewhere at £2,700/month in Central London doesn't mean you should be able to get housing benefit on it! The 12 week protection isn't a problem IMO, if it's a 12 week gap in employment for example. But after the 12 week protection (that is current legislation) it should swing into place, and tough, move!

If I can live on less than 12k then how can someone on £26k plead poverty, it's beyond me!

 

[Ivo]

What Nym said. I believe the official definition of poverty in this country is having a household income of less than 60% of the national average; the claim that so many will become affected by this is preposterous. (I think that's spelt right )

This is the kind of thing that only Labour (and apparently the House of Lords) would disagree with.

Those on £26K on benefits usually end up in the tabloids anyway; anything to reduce the amount of stirring they concoct!

 

[ainsworth74]

Not opposed to it as I see no reason why the taxpayer should contribute more than £26,000 to anyone any way.

 

[richw]

My income of £14k plus around 4k per annum in tax credits easily keeps myself, wife and 18 month old daughter. it also maintains the finance payment on a brand new car each for both myself and wife.admittedly i have to budget well to keep on top of everything but i normally end up with about £100 a month available at next pay day.
Therefore I'd say 26k is more than enough!

 

[WestCoast]

I agree fully with this cap. I see no reason why someone should be paid over £26,000 in benefits - it's significantly more than many people earn in a year.

 

[Aictos]

Same here, I've been brought up on the ethics of hard work as was my late father and both my maternal/paternal grandparents.

Benefits were for people who really were struggling, hence why I strongly support the move to cap benefits, it's disgusting to see lazy work shy people who rather just claim benefits rather then proactively look for employment.

It took a life threatening illness which eventually took the life of my father to put him out of work, which highlights the ethics my family were brought up on.

 

[deltic]

The Government are proposing to cap benefits at £26,000 (untaxed). This is broadly equivalent to someone paying tax earning over £30,000. However, it is claimed that this will disproportionately affect some people, and force others into poverty.


Discuss!

You would need to earn around £35,000 a year to have a take home pay of £26,000 - taking account of tax and national insurance. Only 30% of full time employees earn more than £35k a year

 

[table38]

and of course if you were working to earn £35k, you could well be commuting into work and shelling out thousands, after tax, for a season ticket

 

[theblackwatch]

It seems everyone is in agreement here for once. In post 5, richw mentioned the word 'budget' which appears to be something a lot of people are incapable of doing. We also hear a very over-used word - poverty. No doubt some people who claim to be living it have a mobile phone contract, Sky TV and such like. If anyone can afford them, they are not living in poverty!

 

[Dennis]

My income of £14k plus around 4k per annum in tax credits easily keeps myself, wife and 18 month old daughter.....
Therefore I'd say 26k is more than enough!

Would you still say that if you had six kids? Or maybe you would be responsible enough to stop reproducing when you realised you might not be able to afford to look after them all.

 

[Nym]

Indeed...

Or driving to a depot and working for a living, then still only actually earning 20k for a 45hr working week with 4:30am starts...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would you still say that if you had six kids? Or maybe you would be responsible enough to stop reproducing when you realised you might not be able to afford to look after them all.

I know for a fact you can raise six kids, and raise them a damn sight better than a family would with 26k, with just 16k...

 

[Zoe]

Would you still say that if you had six kids? Or maybe you would be responsible enough to stop reproducing when you realised you might not be able to afford to look after them all.

Cicumstances can change. For example you may be in a well paid job and lose it. These days it's not a case of walking out of one well paid job straight into another one.

 

[Nym]

Cicumstances can change. For example you may be in a well paid job and lose it. These days it's not a case of walking out of one well paid job straight into another one.

But if you where in such a job for being intelligent, surely you'd be intelligent enough to have built up some savings in case you loose your job...

(And this is why I'd keep the 12 week protection on housing benefit)

Alas, budgeting and living within your means is something 99% of people in this country seem to be allergic to nowadays...

 

[WestCoast]

We also hear a very over-used word - poverty. No doubt some people who claim to be living it have a mobile phone contract, Sky TV and such like. If anyone can afford them, they are not living in poverty!

I've argued this in the past. There are very few people in this country living in poverty of international standards. There are certainly people living in very difficult circumstances, but poverty is a very strong term.

 

[scotsman]

Right then. Who would get £26k?

Someone on housing benefit - so, someone on rented accommodation who earns below a certain amount.

Someone with a number of children (Child Benefit) - a lot of mouths to feet, weans to clothe etc.

Someone who is, more than likely, out of work - this need not be for trying, people who don't take jobs when offered them lose some of their Jobseeker's Allowance anyway.

Or, they could be ill and unable to work, in which case they would be on Disability Living Allowance.

Furthermore, I bet this figure includes things like Council Tax Benefit too - it's not cash in hand, like other benefits, it's just a bill written off in whole or part

This can add up to a considerable amount, but I think we can ascertain that those who are on such a high amount are, to some extent, 1) pretty unfortunate, and, 2) not rich by any stretch of the imagination.

Just because someone has a high income, doesn't mean that they don't have to lot to pay for as well.

Also, on the minimum wage point. Surely, since costs for all necessities in life are rising, it would be a better incentive for people to work by raising the minimum wage to a living wage instead of cutting benefits payments?

 

[richw]

Would you still say that if you had six kids? Or maybe you would be responsible enough to stop reproducing when you realised you might not be able to afford to look after them all.

I'd hope to be responsible enough to stop and have no more than i can reasonably afford to provide a good upbringing. I could probably afford to bring up 2=3 children without stretching my finances.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
i've come across a benefits calculator, going to have a play to see how to get lots of benefits
http://www.turn2us.org.uk/benefits_search.aspx

 

[Nym]

Right then. Who would get £26k?

Someone on housing benefit - so, someone on rented accommodation who earns below a certain amount.

Someone with a number of children (Child Benefit) - a lot of mouths to feet, weans to clothe etc.

Prevent pregancy, free bedroom teles for couples and better sex education...

Someone who is, more than likely, out of work - this need not be for trying, people who don't take jobs when offered them lose some of their Jobseeker's Allowance anyway.

Doesn't mean you need to actually be any good at job interviews, at no point when I was on JSA was I told to provide evidence, but I didn't receive any help other than the JSA, I did once sign on for a total of three days...!

Or, they could be ill and unable to work, in which case they would be on Disability Living Allowance.

This can add up to a considerable amount, but I think we can ascertain that those who are on such a high amount are, to some extent, 1) pretty unfortunate, and, 2) not rich by any stretch of the imagination.

Just because someone has a high income, doesn't mean that they don't have to lot to pay for as well.

Also, on the minimum wage point. Surely, since costs for all necessities in life are rising, it would be a better incentive for people to work by raising the minimum wage to a living wage instead of cutting benefits payments?

And minimum wage, working 40hrs a week is enough to feed and clothe a family, maybe not in brand new fancy clothes, but they won't be going round in rags.

And if someone has a lot to pay for and is living on benefits, what reason do they have to be living in an expensive area, move somewhere cheaper, they of course will if benefits don't pay for their big ass rented flat...

 

[richw]

on my above link, having 4 kids being out of work would earn you £30,032.90 a year in benefits
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
sorry for lots of posts, I work 40 hrs a week. My above link tells me I'd be £9000 a year better off not working sitting on my ass doing nothing.
Really angers me!!

 

[Nym]

Well, since living costs exld. housing for a family of six are about £100/week tops, including clothing and additional, £40/week on food, so I'm being very generous here.

Or work it out the JSA way, you get about £50/week/person, for all living costs.

So, family of six, I get to £14k... Roughly

 

[Zoe]

And if someone has a lot to pay for and is living on benefits, what reason do they have to be living in an expensive area, move somewhere cheaper, they of course will if benefits don't pay for their big ass rented flat...

If you are on benefits you can't be that selective about where you live. It can be lucky to even find a landlord that will rent to anyone claiming benefits.

 

[SS4]

This is wonderful propaganda for the Conservative Party; they've managed to convince the media that both the Lords and Labour are opposed to the bill as a whole whereas in reality nobody is seriously opposed to the bill though, the objection was on the grounds that this £26,000 would include child benefit.

If these claimants are as ****less as most of you assume then surely it follows they'll let their kiddies go without before they do?

 

[Nym]

This is why the good lord gave us housing association slum lords, makes people aspire to get a sodding job!

And if it didn't include (Child Tax Credits, as in, have kids, pay slightly less tax, if you're earning enough) then you could drop the benifits number to 16k...

 

[Zoe]

Surely, since costs for all necessities in life are rising, it would be a better incentive for people to work by raising the minimum wage to a living wage instead of cutting benefits payments?

The question here is what the necesseties of life are. Cars, cellphones, televisions and computers would not be considered essential.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is why the good lord gave us housing association slum lords, makes people aspire to get a sodding job!

To say that housing associations are "sulm lords" is a generalization that is best left for the Daily Mail. Also it should be noted that social housing is not exactly the easiest thing to get these days. It's also not as easy to get a job as it once was.

 

[SS4]

DLA is excluded IIRC but I may be wrong.

Private landlords are the only real people profiting from the current arrangement. Since most of the social housing was sold off (by whom?) Local Authorities have been obliged to put them up in private landlord housing who, knowing they have pretty much carte blanche to charge whatever they like are raking it in.

Why should someone, especially with children, be forced to move out? There aren't many cheap houses (see above) and that's before we mention the psychological stress on children no doubt contributing to the lack of social mobility.

Next you'll be saying because they don't pay NI they don't deserve the NHS, Free prescriptions, opticians and dentistry along with all the other passported benefits :roll:


Remember that the media is in the business of sacrificing the truth to reinforce prejudices wherever possible so take what they say with a trough of salt.

 

[Nym]

It's also not as easy to get a job as it once was.

Living in an area with rather high unemployment, the longest I have ever been unemployed is er.... 3 weeks...

Some people in the job centre have been signing on there for years, yet somehow, someone with sod all experience in the field he's applying for (Call Centre or Data Processing) manages to get into the job within a matter of weeks.

Wonder how I manage it and no-one else does...

 

[Zoe]

Private landlords are the only real people profiting from the current arrangement. Since most of the social housing was sold off (by whom?) Local Authorities have been obliged to put them up in private landlord housing who, knowing they have pretty much carte blanche to charge whatever they like are raking it in.

Any use of private landlords though for emergency accomodation should be temporary although temporary can be a long time due to the lack of social housing.

 

[SS4]

Living in an area with rather high unemployment, the longest I have ever been unemployed is er.... 3 weeks...

Some people in the job centre have been signing on there for years, yet somehow, someone with sod all experience in the field he's applying for (Call Centre or Data Processing) manages to get into the job within a matter of weeks.

Wonder how I manage it and no-one else does...

Luck. Like it or not your experience is contrary to the prevailing circumstances.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Any use of private landlords though for emergency accomodation should be temporary although temporary can be a long time due to the lack of social housing.

Definitely. Although, like you say, there is temporary and "temporary"

 

[table38]

...private landlord housing who, knowing they have pretty much carte blanche to charge whatever they like are raking it in.

Which surely is an argument for a benefits cap

 

[Zoe]

Some people in the job centre have been signing on there for years, yet somehow, someone with sod all experience in the field he's applying for (Call Centre or Data Processing) manages to get into the job within a matter of weeks.

It may well have been that in your case you were lucky. I know of people that have applied for many jobs as required to do by the Job Centre but not got an offer from any of them.