Why is the benefit cap still in place?

[Mrsbeanz]

Why haven't the government scrapped the benefit cap as it was introduced to get people into work. Why at a time when people are losing jobs and finding it hard to find work, and many being told they shouldn't go to work should people still be capped? It just forces people into.poverty and homelessness. Especially since rents are high and a housing crisis

Because Tories

A lot of people currently putting themselves at risk as essential workers have to have benefit top ups on their wages just to manage financially.

It’s very frustrating on one hand to be told your work is essential but on the other be left to scrape by because your role isn’t worthy enough of decent pay and then everyone else tells you it’s your own fault and should move or get a different job. No, just want to be paid properly for the role I’m doing so I don’t have to be judged on the top ups that are needed for my family to get by in life.

@MeanMrMustardSeed

I never quite get the argument about benefits meaning ‘poor people’ can only live in certain areas. That’s true for everyone. I can’t afford to live in the best road / detached house / nicest village etc. Lots of working people can’t get a mortgage. We left London when we had children as we couldn’t afford to house them there. Also, we have to (the government has to) get to the bottom of non resident parents not always financially supporting their children. All children have two biological parents, it’s a fact of life. Of course there are many horrible situations (death, imprisonment, abuse etc) which mean resident parents are financially supporting their children alone. But in the vast majority of cases the state / taxpayer is picking up the tab for absent / financially irresponsible parents. I think this needs to be addressed.

Unfortunately this is the exact reason why benefits are no longer means tested against child maintenance. Because NRPs are often unreliable with their payments. So to be honest it wouldn't make a difference unless we had a US style system where the NRP is imprisoned if they don't pay for their child.

At the moment maintenance has no bearing on benefits. Myself and my friend are both single parents on low wages, we get exactly the same in tax credits but I am much better off as I get £500pm child maintenance and she gets nothing from her ex.

waxonwaxoff you get a lot extra and I honestly think NRPs should be held to account & relieve the taxpayer of the burden.

Cuntishness.

There's a section of society who really like to punish people for needing help.

[quote NatashaAlianovaRomanova]@converseandjeans definitely agree with this - as a single parent with 3 primary school kids I received more "take home" pay a month in benefits than I currently earn as gross salary.

The equivalent gross salary I'd have needed to maintain the take home element would have been £34,000 before I even considered childcare to allow me to work - that just wasn't right & provided no incentive for people to work.

Not that I agree with the current cap - the entire benefits system needs a proper overhaul but that would take years & cost billions so no chance it'll ever happen. [/quote]
We earned around that amount when ours were tiny and had little money.

If you're on benefits there's help with things. We also had to pay childcare so we could work, run two cars etc. There's no money for school dinners, trips. Also when you're working your salary stays the same - on benefits I think you get more for each child (although I believe this is now capped)

I'm glad I worked as my pension and national insurance contributions carried on and I still have a job. But it's madness that as a family with two adults both working we were getting the same take home as a single parent. It's a juggling act getting to work on time with small children. So I think if people can get similar to £34k salary for not doing any paid employment there is no incentive to work.

Surely it's better for people to work and get tax credits? That's a whole other issue however with big corporations paying crap wages and the taxpayer topping those wages up. These companies should be forced to pay a living wage.

Agree with @MeanMrMustardSeed I think the current system is generous as it is. It should be a safety net not a way of life.

@converseandjeans

waxonwaxoff you get a lot extra and I honestly think NRPs should be held to account & relieve the taxpayer of the burden.

I agree. This is where the focus should be on. Benefits could be reduced if NRPs were forced to pay their fair share, no excuses or they face prison time. I read that the unpaid bill for child maintenance was in the billions last year and it just gets written off.

Cuntishness.

There's a section of society who really like to punish people for needing help.

What a valuable contribution to the thread, really thought provoking and adds a lot to the discussion.

Things should be fairer and more accessible all round, imo it's not so much an argument about benefits, but why people as a whole are often forced to move away from support networks etc due to unaffordability, and what can be done about that.

Do you want it to have no cap at all then?

How do you want it to work?

If Mr and Mrs middle class lose their £150000 combined wage jobs in London and can’t pay rent on there £3000 a month flat should be just bung them 6k a month? Because without it there lives will be turned upside down.

Or does this benefit cap you speak about only go to the level that suits your adequate life threshold?

@Attippingpoint

I also didn’t get the £20 per month increase

Why didn’t you get the £20 increase? I think you should of done rent aside the increase was nothing to do with that.

@Bathbea

Cuntishness.

There's a section of society who really like to punish people for needing help.

What a valuable contribution to the thread, really thought provoking and adds a lot to the discussion.

Things should be fairer and more accessible all round, imo it's not so much an argument about benefits, but why people as a whole are often forced to move away from support networks etc due to unaffordability, and what can be done about that.

Provoked you into replying though, didn't it?

I've worked with marginalised and disenfranchised individuals, families and groups my entire career, specialising during the Cameron government's austerity years in welfare reform support; please don't feel that I need you to explain the issues to me or think I am interested in your evaluation of the value of my contributions to any discussion.

@unmarkedbythat so you could have contributed something worthwhile with your insight, that's a shame you didn't then and just chose a pointless reply :)

@Roastednotsalt It may have been added to the basic allowance on UC but if you're affected by the benefit cap nothing is increasing that. They could add £1000 per month and it would still just be deducted to keep you under the cap. I think it's estimated that over 77,000 UC claims didn't see this 'uplift' because of the cap

@ConsuelaHammock

Does the benefit cap apply if you are in work? I don’t disagree with a benefit cap in theory but children shouldn’t be the ones to suffer. How do we as a society encourage people to postpone having children until they are financially stable ?

This never goes down well but I’m guna agree. I understand circumstances change and so on. But children are often brought in to situations knowingly you cannot afford the kids you already have. Like anything in life you need to live within your means. There’s always a sob story because people are automatically on the fence. A big part of it is people have children 2+ and expect others to pick up the slack (government).

The line has to be drawn some where. How can we lift the benefit cap in a pandemic FFS. Worst idea ever.

I think it's about time there was a system taking into account how much you've paid into the system. It is in a lot of countries. Here you might pay nothing in and get every benefit going. And somebody might have paid in for years and gets the sorry no your entitled to zilch.

Nobody on ESA got the extra 20 quid either.

So poor people should only be allowed to live in certain areas of the country

If you can pay your own way then fine. But the tax payer should not be expected to fund people living in expensive locations.

Well bugger it then. If you haven't paid enough in to the system or you have 3 children and then lose your job or you have a horrendous childhood which has affected your entire youth and education meaning no employer will give you a chance at more than the most basic minimum wage/zero hours job? Fuck it, you're on your own.

I know, people abuse the system and take the piss but it is such a tiny minority (obviously they're the ones chosen for disgusting programs like benefit street etc. People just doing their best and living their lives are pretty dull). Maybe we should look at all the other things that keep people on benefits before just deciding that we can't be arsed to help? Affordable childcare, better education especially for those with disabilities, making sure employees are better protected and actually enforcing rights etc, stop landlords who charge extortionate rates for damp infested property and don't keep up with repairs.

Just keeping people in poverty and blaming them for not being able to 'better themselves' is utterly disgusting. Have a Google of what Terry Pratchett wrote about the price of poverty and his example of buying boots before spouting anymore crap about people should 'just move'

I don’t disagree with a benefit cap in theory but children shouldn’t be the ones to suffer

And thats the problem

Some parents will use their handouts wisely and put the childrem first. But there are some that will first ensure their Sky TV and fags are paid for then cry foul when they cannot feed their kids.

@user1465423698

So disabled people should be left without enough money to heat their homes or pay their rent, because some other people feel jealous if the disabled people have enough money to live a worthwhile life?

What is not right is for people to be impoverished deliberately.

The cost of poverty, malnourishment, poor health, emergency housing, etc is far greater than just covering the cost of people's housing and living needs.

We can afford it. We choose not to. Because "why should they have something I don't" apparently.

Disabled people are not affected by the benefit cap, neither are people in receipt of the sickness element of Uc or carers element.

@JellyBabiesFan SOME!! So we should just punish everyone on benefits just in case a few of them don't spend it exactly how you think they should?

@JellyBabiesFan

I don’t disagree with a benefit cap in theory but children shouldn’t be the ones to suffer

And thats the problem

Some parents will use their handouts wisely and put the childrem first. But there are some that will first ensure their Sky TV and fags are paid for then cry foul when they cannot feed their kids.

Sky TV always gets trotted out on these threads. Such a lazy response.

@Attippingpoint

I’m a recent single mother, so my circumstances were different a year ago. £1400 is relatively cheap for the area, we need to be walking distance to school as no transport.

Unfortunately I’m still at the college stage of my journey. I’m holding out until September when I will get proper student financial support. In the mean time the FSM vouchers are paying for our shopping and Child benefit keep our electric switched on.

Don’t get me wrong I’m very grateful that we have the safety net of a benefit system. However, it feels very unfair that should we be in the NE for instance, I would have far more money left to pay for the basics.

is the other parent still contributing to their children?

@user1465423698

The point of it was to punish people. It was never about "getting people into work" . It was always about impoverishing people and forcing them from their homes.

That's why it's still here. Because they still want to punish people for being poor, unemployed or disabled.

Question answered.