Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Welfare Bill - Benefit Capping

27 replies

CogitoErgoSometimes · 23/01/2012 07:23

So often, not least on MN, I see posts that give the lie to the myth that benefit claimants are somehow rolling in cash. It is clearly a tough existence that you wouldn't wish on anyone. And yet the proposal to cap benefits at £25k take-home (about £35k before tax) is being opposed on grounds such as affecting 'millions', plunging people into poverty, homelessness etc. I'm finding it very difficult to square the two... they can't both be right.

OP posts:
Acumenoop · 23/01/2012 08:31

Yeah, I think it's a pretty edge case, 26k. We don't get anything like that amount. After HB we're on about 12k, with HB it's about 17k, that's working tax credits, HR DLA, CA, HB, CTB, no kids.

Two HR DLA receivers, with one child, caring for each other and starting up a new businesss, living in a 3 bed flat, could conceivably reach that. Say, a family in a car crash and both parents break their necks and they need to put the toddler in a nursery for a part of each day.

Or a family with six children whose business fails and the mum has a nervous breakdown and then they split up. They could hit that.

I can't see how it will affect millions of people in most benefits. Working single parent HB claimants in the South East, most likely, because £400/w is twenty grand.

Yeah, I think it's another HB cap. I don't disagree that HB is out of control, and citing these high rents, it's very easy to get sympathy from the 90% of the population who don't live in London. My rent, frex, is £90/w for a house, so £400 seems like an unbelievable amount. Like a palace. But then the ire is always directed at the claimants, who don't actually keep that money! Landlords do. No one calls them benefit claimants. So the argument is, imo, suspect. It's directing the punishment at the people with the least power in the situation.

I think the answer is council housing, not homelessness, really. And rent control, possibly, but council housing.

EdithWeston · 23/01/2012 07:32

I've just commented on the thread which has just been started "In the News".

A household on benefits also has various other things (like FSM, prescriptions etc), which the waged one does not, as well as the tax/NI being left out of the equation.

It says a great deal about the plight of the worker, when the average household waged income is lower than that (potentially) provided on benefits. I assume that not every claimant household will receive as much as the cap. But setting the cap higher than the average wage seems on the generous side.

Swipe left for the next trending thread