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

MrsHeffly. I planned for my DC (only going to have one) and I saved enough to cover the childcare costs until they started school. I had twins, my then partner tried to strangle me leaving me no choice but to leave, and so the money ran out within 18 months.

How on earth was I supposed to forsee that?

Sorry re children you plan for their entire future not just the year they are born.

I'd have loved 4 children but knew money would be tight and when they got older we'd have 4 lots of everything to pay for.We also knew should we ever have a dip in salary or face redundancy feeding 4 children would be a lot harder so we stopped.

I fail to see why the state should fund people who don't choose to look and plan ahead.

In a morally sound society, it will always be the case that those at the top pay more tax than those at the bottom because they have more to start with.

If someone pays 50% tax on a salary of £10,000 it is obvious they will be unable to feed themselves.

If someone pays 50% tax on a salary of £100,000 they still have double the typical salary left to live off.

I don't think people should be penalised for being rich but those who can afford it should be contributing more than those who can't are made to suffer.

We live in a capitalist, free-market society. By it's very nature it relies on wealth being held by the top 10% of society and the rest of society continuing to believe in the notion that they too could rise to that 10% of they just work hard enough. But it's not true, because that rise requires a not-inconsiderable amount of luck, contacts and opportunity (which is very dependent on money, e.g. social clubs, university fees) as well as hard work and talent. In the past we actually had greater social mobility than we have now. It's on the decline in this country.

How can you penalise people for not earning more when they aren't given the opportunity to do so in the first place?

"Which is much less than they should"

There's that sense of entitlement again. "You earn a lot of money so give me some."

Well sheep, I'm sure you're one of those who will be vastly reassured by what that nice Ian Duncan Smith has to say:

Iain Duncan Smith: 'Welfare cap will not push anyone into poverty'

"For those who are doing the right thing who have fallen out of work, we will support them and make sure they get back to work.
"Councils will be able to work with certain key families who may need a little bit more time to make some changes to their circumstances while they push them through the cap and into new housing."

The whole article is here:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9032169/Iain-Duncan-Smith-launches-last-ditch-appeal-over-welfare-reforms.html

This is beginning to sound like a "how dare taxpayers want to decide how much and to whom they pay tax" thread

completely agree witn you kelly2000

Which is much less than they should, and also because the vast majority of people earn so little they don't pay any or they'd starve.

I am that people pay £1600 a month in rent!

I pay £450 a month for a beautiful 3 bed bungalow with playroom and a garden big enough for an allotment at the bottom! Ah it's good up north! [smug face]

Hully - The top 1% of earners in the UK are contributing nearly 25% of the entire income tax in the UK.

what about the families who have 4 children or more who conceived thier children whilst in work and not on benefits then through no fault of thier own find themselves on benefits. Shall we put the surplus dc in care .

I have 4 dc on benefits, didnt choose this life trust me and everysingle one of my dc were conceived whilst my circumstances were vastly different.

Vodafone owe Six billion in tax.

Six billion.

The govt let them off over lunch.

Um, sorry to disabuse you Bumbley, but they all have topflight accountants so that they don't pay it.

"Its the highest earners who should be the ones helping the country out of financial strife."

They already are. Who do you think pays the most in tax?

"Its the highest earners who should be the ones helping the country out of financial strife."

They already are. Who do you think pays the most in tax?

This legislation is aimed squarely at people who do not work but choose to have large families - 3 or more children. That's the only way you can be getting more than £26,000 in benefits as far as I can see.

They're trying to achieve a cultural change, the message is "Don't have kids you can't afford, and expect to live in expensive parts of London and the South East". There are 18 local authorities where more than 1,000 families will be affected, 17 of them are in London.

This is a good rticle: www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/23/welfare-reform-benefit-cap-questions-answers?newsfeed=true

Those of you imagining there will suddenly be loads of empty buy-to-let properties in London and the South East are going to be sadly disappointed. The whole point of it is to make space for nice middle-class professionals where the jobs are!

Of course those who will suffer the most are the children of people who make the unwise choice to have kids before they can even afford to home themselves, let alone their kids. It used to be accepted (albeit grudgingly) that as a society we should protect children from their parents' lack of responsibility and poor judgement. I'm afraid the election of a Tory-led coalition means those days are over.

What's worse is that it will increase the homeless burden on councils in the poorest areas - even Eric Pickles thinks so! But hey, who cares about that as long as the nice parts of London and the South East are cleared of the poor, making way for the middle classes.

Yet the recent YouGov poll shows just how popular the cap is:

"YouGov found that 69% of British people, including two-thirds of Labour supporters, either support the Coalition's benefits cap of £26,000 per household or think it should be even stricter. Only 16% want a more generous cap or no cap at all. The cap is one of the reasons why welfare reform is the most popular part of the Coalition's programme."

KW - I think we need to keep the message clear and simple, people's eyes glaze over at statistics!

Hullygully - ^Here are a couple of interesting facts:

1. The people that lose their homes WON'T be the single parent on White Lightening with seventeen kids and a plasma tv...because they live in affordable social housing.

The people that lose their homes will be the working poor, trying to live on the minimum wage and paying huge amounts of private rent.

1. If all benefits are cut, no one earning a low wage will be better off, the rich will be even better off as the savings will be ploughed into tax cuts.

1. Up unitl 2020 no low wages will rise, but higher earners will still see their wages increase.

1. WE ARE NOT IN THIS TOGETHER.^

Thank you for stating what i was trying to say and totally failed in my rambling.

There is no way the cap will put an end to extortionate rents. There is no legislation in place with Private Landlords and there needs to be. In my area, the council pays, (I'm told) due to the rate reduction brought in months back by the government, £700 a month for a 2 bed property. However, the cheapest two bed properties in the area are over a thousand pound a month.
If anything, the government needs to bring in caps on how much Landlords can charge. However, with the Tories in government, it's a case of helping the rich to get richer and robbing the most vulnerable. Its the highest earners who should be the ones helping the country out of financial strife.

dreamingofsun

When I was made redundant many years ago living in a studio flat HB would not cover my full rent because they considered it a 'bed sit' - there answer was to move to a one bedroomed place where they would pay the rent. My argument that if I then got a job I couldn't afford the rent on a one bedroom was useless. BTW they would also pay for the move.

The number of people who keep 'churning out children' to milk the benefits system are very low, so let's not pretend that we are talking about the majority of benefit claimants.

The vast majority of single mothers are in their 30s and single following separation or divorce. Less than 2% are unmarried teenage mums and even fewer have 5-bed homes and plasma TVs - despite what the right-wing press would have you believe.

The birth rate in the UK is falling, because most people are having fewer children. Funnily enough, this includes those on benefits as there is no such thing as 'a typical person on benefits' as they are not an homogenous whole but people from all walks of life and varying circumstance just like the rest of us. The so-called underclass where three-generations have never worked and the mum has 30 kids by 30 different fathers may exist, but they are a minority. By creating a system designed to punish them, you actually punish the majority of benefit claimants who do not deserve it.

There are always going to be people who exploit a situation. The thing is whether you think that justifies removing help from the much greater number who don't. I don't think it does.

While households receiving DLA will be exempt from the cap, the government (tellingly) hasn't said that PIP claimants (replacement benefit for DLA) will also be exempt.

Here are a couple of interesting facts:

1. The people that lose their homes WON'T be the single parent on White Lightening with seventeen kids and a plasma tv...because they live in affordable social housing.

The people that lose their homes will be the working poor, trying to live on the minimum wage and paying huge amounts of private rent.

1. If all benefits are cut, no one earning a low wage will be better off, the rich will be even better off as the savings will be ploughed into tax cuts.

1. Up unitl 2020 no low wages will rise, but higher earners will still see their wages increase.

1. WE ARE NOT IN THIS TOGETHER.

Do people realise how Housing benefit is calculated?

The amount of money you earn is calculated alongide the amount that the government has said you need to meet basic needs.

Amounts here.

They add up all the 'applicable amounts', then look at all your income (except for CB).

They calculate 65% of the difference (if your income exceeds your applicable amount) and your LHA is reduced by that much.

So, say you earn £100 more than your applicable amount each week, your LHA would be reduced by £65 per week.

What this Government are doing, is saying 'I know we've worked out what the minimum you need to live on is, but that doesn't look good when it actually gets written on paper...so we'll reduce it'.

How is that moral? How is it moral to acknowledge the bare minimum a family needs to be out of poverty, yet deliberately plunge them into poverty?