In hoping the benefits cap may prove to be A Good Thing?

ChickenLikn

Silly me, of course, I'll just cryogenically freeze them, why didn't I think of that before?!

Seriously though, it's horribly punative to children - real people - who will be much worse off, and what for? Pushing those children into poverty doesn't help anyone and will make our whole society poorer as a result.

Unles people think it's OK to sacrifice opportunities and protection-from-poverty for one generation of children as a warning to the parents of the next?

Personally I think that's totally immoral.

migratingsouth - can't you just pause children until you've got more money? Put them in storage, hibernate them?

Shellybobs = they are wrong about lots of things unfortunately.

oops sorry I missed a word when I copied that over!

It should say "Singles or lone parents with no children!"

I can understand (although I don't agree with) their reasoning that if people know they won't get "paid" for having children, that maybe they'll think twice before having more.

But even if you agree with that, how will driving children who already exist into poverty help anyone? Their parents can hardly go back in time and decide retrospectively not to have had those children!

Not only do they not give two hoots about single parents, that document lays out exactly how they think the cap will disproportionately affect LPs.

It says:

?Approximately 40% of households who are likely to be affected by the cap will consist of five or more children whilst over 80% will consist of 3 or more children. Fewer than 10% of households likely to be affected by the cap will consist of no children at all?.

?Estimated make up of capped households

Couples with:

? No children: 0%
? 1 or 2 children: 5%
? 3 children: 15%
? 4 children: 10%
? 5 or more: 10%

Lone parents with:

? No children: 5%
? 1 or 2 children: 10%
? 3 children: 5%
? 4 children: 10%
? 5 or more: 35%"

That impact assessment ADMITS that there WILL be people who are defined as disabled under the DDA and the Equality Act 2010 that will be affected by the cap UNLESS they are working enough hours to be exempt. This will affect REAL people - only 30,000 of the claimants will be protected. And that number is falling all the time because of the amount of people with disabilities that ATOS is wrongly deeming fit for work.

This Government really just don't give two HOOTS about Single Parents or the Disabled, do they?

I don't know where you found that Impact assessment, but some of the stuff it contains is just .

You do know that the transitional protection is a total joke, that they don't expect to be paying ANYONE after 2015, don't you? They have set such arbitary criteria on what makes you LOSE the transitional protection it is unbelievable.

Like, if you are given transitional protection, and then MOVE house to a cheaper house - you will lose your transitional protection as you have had a change of address. Despite the fact that you are doing so to try to REDUCE your outgoings.

Or, your baby turns 1yo - that counts as a change of circumstance that will make you lose transitional protection. Or your youngest child turning 5yo. Or 12yo. Or a new partner moving in. Or your partner leaving you - so you could have a woman, who as part of a couple gets transitional protection - then her partner walks out, she not only loses her partner, but she will also lose her transitional protection, and may have to move house AND move her dc's school AND move away from all her support networks. And THAT'S not going to have a severe impact on that family?

I just can't believe that they are so blind to the effects this will have on REAL PEOPLE. Not numbers. Not 'scroungers'. But on REAL LIFE PEOPLE.

No its the average wage for a single person.

Ok, well in that case no one's bothered to tell Cameron, because the government (and the press) are quoting the cap as being based on an average 'working family's income' of £500/wk.

There is no mention anywhere of single person's income.

In fact, as you're so convinced it's to do with single people, have a look at the DWP's Impact Assesment and then tell them they're wrong about what the cap's based upon, too.

No its the average wage for a single person.

Not sure why they want an overall cap based on one persons average wage to be applied to an entire household, but I expect it is purely PR, and has been quite successful in pushing the whole "scroungers" attitude.

The cap figure is NOT one person's average wage. The cap is a figure based upon the average working family's income.

Yes, the average salary per person might be somewhere around the £26,500 being talked about, but that's BEFORE taxes.

On the other hand...

Don't look now but we are going back into recession. Wages and jobs are sinking fast.

Don't look now but the NHS is being parcelled off to private companies and you'll be paying for your healthcare (in top up charges or insurance premiums) plus a profit for the company prob by the end of this parliament.

Don't look now but the government have decided that if you lose your job, you'll have to work for free for private companies. Forced, unpaid labour, yes. Against several of our laws and human rights.

Don't look now but you're losing the right to a fair trial. Legal aid cuts mean you may have to be your own lawyer, DIY.

Benefits bashing is a good distraction tactic, Ill give them that. Lets continue adding up hooow much they spent on whaat!?

There are already benefit caps for every single thing.

It is based on the minimum the government has decided that they require to live. So surely this will push people into destitution.

Not sure why they want an overall cap based on one persons average wage to be applied to an entire household, but I expect it is purely PR, and has been quite successful in pushing the whole "scroungers" attitude.

And I've got 4 dc...so how the heckity do THEY do it, that's just my opinion. Them having misplaced priorities is NOT a case for reducing benefits - because that will penalise the majority of people on benefits who DO have sensible priorities.

I know I can't afford that on benefits...I only have the net because my uncle pays for it for the dc's homework,I just get the added benefit of being able to use it when they aren't doing homework...I don't pay for sky tv, or a tv license - my Ex-P pays for that as 'additional maintenance' for the dc. He CHOOSES to do that.

BBC have an article on a family living on benefits... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185 The benefit taker sums it all up in the last line by saying this cap will mean his family has to choose between eating or heating. Does anyone else think it funny that he doesn't even consider reducing the 24 cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large pouch of tobacco, or reducing his Sky subscription (already mentioned in his weekly expenditure )before starving his family? I can't believe he pays Sky over £60 a month, I don't know about the alcohol and tobacco except that I know I can't afford it on a working salary.

Its great on paper...but in practise they'll eff it up. Im all for not rewarding someone who has decided to become a baby factory so they can sit on their arses for their working life but what about on the allbeit rare occasions where a family of say 8 who have been hard working suddenly find themselves jobless single? Granted were all responsible adults and we should have savings for such occurrences but stuff happens and a cap needs to have a certain amount of flexibility and be index linked too. Also where are the hand ups rather than hand outs? Surely its cheaper in the long run totemporarily reward those who prove they want to be a valuable member of society than those who want to blag their way through life as much as possible?

'Probably the only way of making a profit would be to buy near-slums, never renovate or repair them and let to HB tenants.'

And where, exactly, do you think the properties with the lowest 30% of rent in an area are? THESE properties. Near-slums.

But even if you don't make a profit NOW, Quattro - you are hoping to make a profit in the future, otherwise it'd be a piss-poor pension prospect...Profits don't have to be realised immediately to still BE a profit.

The reason I have a buy-to-let property is because of the general state of pensions. Pensions are in a dire state, and despite topping the contributions up, it's clear that the funds are not going to provide an adequate amount for retirement. It's a good financial idea to spread the risk of stocks and shares (in which the pension funds are invested) into property.

I do not exploit my tenants and never have, and I have never operated at a profit. The idea is that at some stage, the property will be paid off and will hopefully deal with pension deficit. I imagine few property companies or landlords actually make much profit. Probably the only way of making a profit would be to buy near-slums, never renovate or repair them and let to HB tenants.

Maybe if you bought the property an age ago, you might be able to make a profit.

those people who say being a landlord is bad - could you tell me what my son who is a student and looking to rent next year should do? if it wasn't for landlords he would be homeless?

there are reasons people become landlords other than the obvious.

yes, there are, moah, and that's why I didn't join in with the bashing. There are many on this thread and all the others like it, though, who clearly are letting for profit and are bigoted against tenants on benefits. Whining about the trials of running a buy-to-let doesn't negate the fact that they are exploiting tenants for profit. Claiming they don't make a profit doesn't negate the fact that they do. Which is why I posted my little summary above.

"Of course you're making hundreds of pounds in p;rofit because at the end of it you'll end up with 200k worth of property you haven't paid a penny towards, whilst the poor sods that have paid your mortgage for you will end up with nothing but an Ikea coffee table.

You wouldn't do it otherwise."

Hold on a minute, I resent that. Although this is veering off topic, I feel I must stand up for myself!

I rent my flat to a friend for £650 a month when the going rate in my area is about £1k a month, and flats are in high demand, I could easily find someone willing to pay this.

Why? Because I'm happy to help my mate out, he's looking after my flat extremely well while I'm at uni as a mature student, and covering costs. Yes, some other "poor sod" is paying my mortgage, but he's getting a pretty bloody good deal and I'm not making hundreds of pound in profit. I've chosen not too because other things are more important to me!

Just had to challenge your assumption, there are reasons people become landlords other than the obvious.

"Give a benefits cap supporter enough rope, and they'll hang themselves..."

Indeed.

Give a benefits cap supporter enough rope, and they'll hang themselves...

If it is heating or not for someone earning £35k, and therefore the same for anyone on £26k of benefits - Does that mean that it's OK for it to be heating or not for those on benefits? Or is it only unfair for someone EMPLOYED to face that choice? Let the proles freeze?

Going back to MrsHeffley's quote - If it is the difference between heating or not to someone on an income of £35k - then surely it is the same for someone receiving benefits of £26k? Not that hardly anyone WILL be getting £26K, due to the way that Universal Credit is worked out.

Calculation for Universal credit is based on certain allowances. It basically combines most of the current benefits system, for those IN work and out of work. Some with disabilities that have been classed as incapable of ANY work, or a VERY limited capacity to work. And those people caring for them.

Universal Credit at it's most basic, for those who are unemployed, will be made up of certain 'elements', in much the same way as Tax Credits are.

There will be an allowance that matches the current level of Jobseekers allowance - a 'personal allowance' of £67.50 for a single person, or £105.95 a week. Then there is a 'dependent' element of £2,555 a year for each of the first 4 dependent children (even if you have more children). So even for a couple with 4 dc, the MOST they could receive is £5,509.40 for the adults and £10,220 for the children. A total of £15,729.40 a year.

Then you get a 'housing costs element'. This is dependant on a number of factors: Where you live, and what the LHA for your area is. This is based on LHA covering the rent on just 30% of the properties in your area. Even though they will already be inhabited by OTHER PEOPLE. It's NOT set on 30% of the available properties, but 30% of ALL the properties that size in your area. 3-bed private rent in my area? £900+pcm. LHA in this area for a 3-bed? Currently £679.98 monthly. Which is £8,159.76 a year. Added to your previous total is £23,889.16. (Your rent still COSTS £900 though, cheapest private house that was AVAILABLE that would accept HB)

Then they look at your child benefit. This couple have 4 dc, so would receive £60.50 a week Child benefit. Or £3,146.00 a year.

Add this to their personal allowance, dependants allowances and Housing element. A total of £27,035.16. Hang on - that's over the cap, so we will have to take away £1,035.16 a year. Because you are getting too much.

Never mind that this will leave you with less money in your hand than this government used to say was the basic amount of money IN YOUR HAND for a family of 6 to live off, forget that. I know we used to say that £373.47 a week (or £8.89 per person per day#) was the minimum you needed after your rent costs in order to survive, now we can only 'afford' to let you have £292.31 a week (or £6.96 per person per day). A difference of £81.17 a week (or £1.93 per person per day) doesn?t matter.

What? You can?t pay your gas bill AND eat? How entitled ARE you? Go and get a job, you lazy scrounger. Why don?t your lazy scrounging children go and get a job? Maybe they can come and clean my chimney. What, you say? That sounds Victorian? Don?t be silly. You can?t expect something for nothing. Even if you ARE only 2yo.

#I have included this figure as it is cited as the current amount that the law STATES that a family of 6 NEEDS to survive EXCLUDING housing costs.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcomloc/1406/1406we02.htm is interesting - points out the disparity between what is paid in LHA, and the cost of temporary accommodation in my area. So anyone who is evicted from a private tenancy for non-payment of rent, because they couldn't afford the top-up, will be paying rates of rent like this. Some of which would take you over the cap WITHOUT any money for food.