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

If the cap will affect so few families (again, households, poloi, not individuals), why bother with it?

Anyone affected would by definition be an unusual case.

But in practice I strongly suspect this will hit families with more than 2 adults and those with mild to moderately disabled members.

lesley - how many people do you think will be able to find cheaper accommodation? There is a shortage of affordable housing as it is, and the new cap will only cover the bottom percentile of local rents.

For example, in my area, there is a cap of £412 per month for a 3-bedroom property. Try finding a privately available house for that. A small number exist but they are snapped up immediately when they appear on the market.

Private landlords can charge what they like and will not reduce their rents if HB is capped. Rental prices are high as people have no choice but to rent as they can't get a mortgage. Supply and demand, I suppose. Lots of renters = high rents, espec where there is a property shortage

The cap is set at 26k, you would have to have a job paying 35k in order to get the same level of income, its outrageous that someone can get the same amount of money through welfare as someone earning 35k a year. Is it any wonder that the public finances are in such a parlous state when we have such arrangements in place.

Yes nilfri - but the point is to make sure that somebody working is better off financially than someone not working. And tbh I would have thought such a cap would affect very few families.

sunshine - unfortunately many people in the current climate are being forced to sell their house or move because they can't afford to continue living where they are. Under this cap, I understood people are given 9 months to find cheaper accommodation - hardly being put out on the streets.

But a family with a gross wage of £35K would be in receipt of benefits on top of that - Child Benefit, tax credits and, in some areas, Housing Benefit just because house prices are so ridiculously high.

I can't live in certain areas because I can't afford it, and I had to downsize at another point in my life, but I was in control of both those situations (albeit stressful control), which is entirely different to having no control whatsoever and literally having to be homeless before having to go cap in hand to the council to request social housing and end up living in b&b, with children, until such time social housing becomes available. You simply cannot pretend they are the same thing as a working person being unable to live in Chelsea.

I read that 26k in benefits is the equivalent of a wage of 35k before tax. So in reality this is a lot of money and doesn't seem an unrealistic cap at all.

The cap isn't per individual, it's per household.

So a large household which includes extended family, living comparatively cheaply and densely together, is more likely to exceed the cap than a small nuclear family or single person.

Since many mildly or moderately disabled people don't receive the qualifying benefit of DLA, but do get ESA and/or Carers Allowance, this measure will effectively target families looking after their own sick, elderly or disabled.

To explain again - being evicted is not the same as a planned house move (even an unwilling one).

Bit surprised people discuss exactly what benefits they get to all and sundry but however many this will affect it's common sense.

I have never actually met anyone who gets £500 per week on benefits

I think its a good thing no-one should be able to receive more than £500 a week in benefits. The welfare bill has ballooned in recent years to levels where it is no longer sustainable or affordable. Reforms are needed to get the welfare bill down

under labour lots of civil servants were told to move out of London to the north or loose their jobs under the relocation of public services. Why was this not devestating?

lots of people move - people in professional jobs seeking promotion. those in the armed forces. I don't see why people on housing benefit should be any different - ok their reasons for moving maybe, but so what - the end result is surely the same.

how is having to move to a different area devestating. It is no-ones right to live in central London.

Housing benefit caps vary from area to area. It's not a flat rate across the country.

Yes, it will undoubtedly bring down rents in the longer term, and for future generations that will certainly be a good thing. But at what cost? And is it the only way?

People will end up getting in terrible arrears and losing their homes. Shelter predict a big increase in homelessness as a result of this. And where are these people going to go? There isn't exactly a surplus of social housing for them to fall back on. Yes they could move to a cheaper area, but the cap will have cut HB in those areas too, so there will be no real change.

Peoples lives will be completely upended. Children will be made first homeless and then have to change schools - two major events for a child that could end up traumatising them, because let's not pretend that eviction is anywhere near the same as a planned house move, and eviction is what it will be because these people wont have the money to plan a move elsewhere - if they did they wouldn't have to leave their current home in the first place. And the elderly, who may be stripped of their increasingly small support network when they lose their homes.

So long term? Yes, it will be A Good Thing. But I don't think that makes it worth doing because in the Short Term it will devastate many people's lives. I'd rather we increased taxation (specifically for big business) than cut money to the most needy.

I don't understand this 'cap' at all. £26,000 is more than my partner and I earn together in a year - he is on roughly 15k and I get

Private landlords are business people and rents react to market forces. If rents are too high and no one could afford them they would have to come down for the landlords to stay in business. If rents are high in your area it means that people are still paying those prices. It is all economic supply and demand forces.

There will always be people who cater to different sectors of the market.

If peopel cannot afford the rent in one area they will have to move to another area, so landlords in the more expensive area will eithe rhave to leave their properties empty, or lower the prices. You can still get £1600 housing benefit per month which is more than many people earn anyway.

I don't.

Depends whether you think the ends justify the means.

The other thing that has occured to me, for the first time, is just how sneaky the Government is being.

They are using arguments which sound so damn reasonable to do a deeply unreasonable thing.

"Why should someone on benefits get more than the average hard working tax payer??"

Well, who would argue with that?

But of course, they are no talking about capping benefits at 'average pay'. They are talking about capping benefits at £26k.

We all know that rates of payy have come down in the last couple of years. This has reduced average pay.

Would the benefit cap go up if the average pay did? No.

The Government aren't proposing to cap benefits at an 'average' pay rate. If they were, they would be using some sort of index link to determine the cap.

Instead, they are saying '£26k' now. In 10 years time, when average wage may be £30k, or £32k, you can guarantee that the benefit cap will still be £26k.

Unfortunately you aren't exempted from the cap if you get any old disability-related benefit.

DLA (need help with personal care or have serious mobility probs) will be exempted.

ESA (not well enough to do any work at all but can manage own personal care) will be included in the capped amount.

And Income Support (not well enough to work fulltime or claim JSA but not sick enough to rate ESA these days) will be included in the capped amount.

The moderately ill will be screwed.