Advanced search

New £23k Benefit Cap.

(1002 Posts)
legotits Mon 07-Nov-16 12:52:45

AIBU to ask if anyone still supports this?

Which families is this targeted at?

Anyone who will be affected, is it even feasible to not be pushed into debt?

wasonthelist Mon 07-Nov-16 13:01:33

Not a supporter, didn't vote for this.

It has a certain logic, but we should be boosting wages not cutting benefits because wages are shit.

GingerIvy Mon 07-Nov-16 13:04:39

They are focusing on punishing the poor because they can make them scapegoats and blame them for the economy and many of the public are too busy sneering at the poor to realise they're next in line for cuts.

legotits Mon 07-Nov-16 13:09:18

Everyone I speak to can't see the logic.

I can't find anyone who thinks it's a good idea.

There must be some support so where is it?
Or have we moved so far into the realms of undeserving poor that no one gives a shit?

Mozfan1 Mon 07-Nov-16 13:10:12

I expect the support comes from people who earn less than that before tax

reallyanotherone Mon 07-Nov-16 13:12:20

I don't know too much about it. Presumably it's a sliding scale.

I do know our family income is less than 23k before tax and we survive ok.

LoisWilkersonsLastNerve Mon 07-Nov-16 13:13:57

The problem is that wages are too low, that won't be addressed because its too much hard work for the government. While I agree that benefits shouldn't be more than what someone working gets, this is not the way to go about it.

SaucyJack Mon 07-Nov-16 13:14:46

I don't know what I think.

Something has gone very wrong somewhere when you compare benefits with wages- I'm sure we can all agree on that.

I'd be inclined to point the finger at private landlords and multinationals paying minimum wage meself tho.

Fourormore Mon 07-Nov-16 13:15:20

It's £20k outside of London.
If people earn less than that before tax, they'd get tax credits wouldn't they?

wasonthelist Mon 07-Nov-16 13:15:40

Whilst I don't support it, the logic goes -

"It shouldn't be possible to get more in benefits than someone earning the average wage would get after tax".

I admit it's a twisted logic, but it relies on that population of people for whom, as Shirley Valentine observed "If you've got a headache, she's got a brain tumour" in other words, that curious mentality that because they have a shitty job that pays really badly for long hours etc, no-one claiming Benefits (regardless of why or how it happened, how they have been claiming etc) should be seen to be getting more.

Of course it should be an aspiration for no-one who could work to rely on benefits, but IMHO the better way to do that would be some more enlightened employment practises, and of course, better wages, no9t kicking the people who are down already.

Unfortunately a lot of people voted for this government, and it's pretty obvious they would do this.

NathanBarleyrocks Mon 07-Nov-16 13:16:30

Very hard to sympathise when millions of people work full time and don't earn anything like £23k after tax.

Arfarfanarf Mon 07-Nov-16 13:18:23

23000 in your pocket is about the same as a gross salary of 29000
Or around 1900 'take home' per month.
It is tight yes but it is doable. More so if it just to service monthly bills.
It is going to be a huge struggle if there are debts.

MrsPear Mon 07-Nov-16 13:18:48

Yes nathan but if you earn less than that then there are top ups

ThroughThickAndThin01 Mon 07-Nov-16 13:21:39

If it operates how I think it operates then I think it sounds fair enough.

If a household member works over 16 hours it doesn't apply.

There are 15 free hours of childcare so it is perfectly possible to work 16 hours. This is being increased to 30 free hours I believe?

There is still a large safety net in place if people don't want to work.

Especially , as many people say, they are taking home less than that whilst working full time., with travel expenses, and all the other expenses work entails.

JayDot500 Mon 07-Nov-16 13:21:44

I know many families who earn less than that before taxes. Whilst I believe that wages should be higher, 23k today is reasonable financial assistance for a family (without any disabilities/other circumstances).

WankingMonkey Mon 07-Nov-16 13:23:42

The issues I see with this are..most people getting anywhere near that amount, most of it will be going on rent. Yes they could move somewhere cheaper but that also costs money and takes guarantors and large deposits generally if you are on benefits. Which a lot of people won't be able to do. So they get stuck..very much like the (cruel and pointless) bedroom tax. A family who lived in my street were evicted as they couldn't afford bedroom tax, yet they had tried to downsize and there were no smaller places available. After they were evicted, they now 'live' in a B&B which I assume costs the taxpayer even more. AND the house they left is still empty a year later. What is the point?

ivehadenough10 Mon 07-Nov-16 13:24:09

I support it.

There was a poster on here yesterdsy about how are they going to survive on £360 a week shock

Sorry but i work full time and don't even have that a week for myself and my children

How can it be far when people on benefits receive more than those who work?

user1471439240 Mon 07-Nov-16 13:24:18

The benefit cap only applies if you are of working age and not working at all.
So as above, £1900 for no work is fine.
Work 16hrs and the cap does not apply. The cap also does not apply to disabled or pensioners.
It is probably fair tbh.

legotits Mon 07-Nov-16 13:25:21

It's false economy though.

Just because people earn less in work they won't earn more by benefits being cut.

Wages need to be higher, we all know that.
Cost of living could be addressed.

Instead we are scalping those already poor enough to need the benefit to make low paid workers feel better.

Now maybe I'm daft but wouldn't paying low paid workers more (enough to survive and live) and leaving people who survive on benefits alone fix the issue of workers earning less than benefit?

LoisWilkersonsLastNerve Mon 07-Nov-16 13:26:47

I think its a popular policy and isn't going to go away because people are pissed off that they are working and no better off than the neighbour who doesn't. It's children who will suffer though and that doesn't sit well with me. Get the nmw up.

imisschocolate Mon 07-Nov-16 13:26:51

I support the benefit cap. I used to earn 14k and lived alone. I was not entitled to any top ups as i didn't have kids. I paid all my bills on time, ate healthy balanced meals and had money left over fir a social life. (I'm not London based).

If a single person living alone can easily survive on 14k there is no reason a family cant survive on 20k.

if you meal plan, batch cook and shop around its shocking how much can be saved.

i know this will be extremely unpopular but that is my view.

wasonthelist Mon 07-Nov-16 13:28:14

Instead we are scalping those already poor enough to need the benefit to make low paid workers feel better.

Agree - it's not a practical policy based on efficacy - it's about people saying "it's not fair" whilst looking at people not that different from them.

ivehadenough10 Mon 07-Nov-16 13:29:15

Imisschocolate, i agree

YelloDraw Mon 07-Nov-16 13:29:40

I kinda support it, and I kinda don't.

There should be a clear signal that you have a responsibility to support your own children and that you can't 'choose' a life on benefits.

But on the other hand, children shouldn't suffer in poverty for their parents choices, and there needs to be much greater protection for the vulnerable (sick, disabled, MH issues etc).

user1471451327 Mon 07-Nov-16 13:30:21

The cap applies if you are ill and in receipt of ESA; so you can be disabled and the cap applies (as not all disabled people get PIP or DLA).

The comparisons with working people are also bogus as the cap includes child benefit and housing benefit; working people can also claim those, so you need to add those on, to make a more valid comparison

This thread is not accepting new messages.