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

@saleorbouy Have you read the thread? Read the many reasons why people who are on a low income can't just 'always move to another area'? Are you aware that the majority of benefit claimants are actually in work and claiming 'top up' benefits so aren't actually 'living solely on income derived from other tax payers'? Of course there should be a cap on how much you can receive in benefits. There always has been. The point is that the current 'benefit cap' is not applied fairly because everyone has different circumstances

@Roastednotsalt This These factors need to be considered before producing more kids though. There’s no point moaning how hard you have it yet you go on to have more kids. Absolutely it’s not fair on the poor kids people only want to speak on it once the problem has arises anything prior it doesn’t get addressed of why the person had numerous kids in the first place. If your struggling with childcare for one child why have more?!

IS a tiny minority of benefit claimants. Some people USED to carry on this cycle but benefits are now capped at 2 children (unless born before April 2017) so this can't happen now. And what would you like to happen? An interrogation into why someone has so many children before they're entitled to any help?

@saleorbouy

Its entirely right that there is a benefit cap. How is it right for someone to live solely on income derived from other taxpayers and be bringing in a monthly income higher than the average u.k salary. I understand rent is high in certain areas but if that is the case then you can always move to another area. I rented in London and it was financially restrictive so we moved North and our monthly rent dropped dramatically for much more space. Its incredibly difficult for most people right now but the government can only soend what it either receives in tax or borrows. At the moment we, as a country are running up a huge deficit for us all to pay off with higher taxes. In an ideal world we could help everyone but reality is that there are financial constraints for all, on both a personal and government level.

People on benefits aren't bringing in more than the average UK salary though.

When I was on benefits I got £1000pm. That's less than someone working full time on minumum wage. That was as a single parent with a child, someone with no dependents gets £70 a week.

I absolutely despise the benefit cap. It’s a policy that only exists to stoke people’s worst prejudices about benefit claimants: it’s all ‘them and us’, pitting the ‘hard working family’ against the ‘scrounging benefit scum’.

The savings from the benefit cap are tiny - a fraction of one percent of the total benefits bill.

It falls completely unfairly on people who can do little to escape it, largely on women with young children who are not expected to be seeking work.

It completely undercuts and undermines the proper function of the welfare system by ignoring a family’s need and imposing and arbitrary cap.

There are limits on the amount of support with housing costs that people can claim, there are limits on the benefits paid towards children’s needs. If you think the benefits system is too generous or disincentives work you should look at LHA limits and taper rates and all that. But these are technical and dry and don’t capture the voters’ imagination the way the idea of ‘not earning more in benefits than the average person earns in work’. Oh yes, that’s a real crowd pleaser. Someone must have been really chuffed with themselves when they came up with that one. It’s a Daily Mail headline turned into a welfare policy.

I've just done a calculation. Not my personal circumstances but based on an LA close to me and roughly what someone I know is facing.

If I earn £604pcm I'm entitled to approx £1700 in UC (basic element, child element and housing element = £1900 less approx £200 deducted as 63% of my earnings after £292 work allowance).

If I'm furloughed on 80% of my wages I'm earning £480 I'm then only entitled to £1515 in UC because of the benefit cap. Very rough figures!

Some scenario if someone is signed of work sick but then they get even less in 'wages'. And there are NO EXCEPTIONS to the benefit cap other than the 9 month grace period that some people are entitled to.

WHY? Why does my income going down mean that I'm in need of LESS benefits? I've lost income and now I'm losing benefits as well? Surely if the government think this is fine to live on the amounts should be lower in the first place? They're not because entitlement letters specifically say 'This is the amount the government believes you reasonably need to live on'. If they think people need the higher amount to live on why are they reducing it when actual wages go down? It's NOT APPLIED FAIRLY

If you work a 40hr week on Nat minimum wage £8.72 per/hr, a gross income of £18137 which after tax with no other deductions would be £15975 - monthly £1331 or £307.21 per/wk. The national average salary of £30800 which net of tax would come out at £24586. - monthly £ 2048 or £472.80 per/wk
Maximum benefits for couple or those with children outside London £384.62per/wk (20k per yr) or £442.31 per/wk (30k per year)

So yes you can receive more in benefits than someone working full time on NMW and only £30 less than someone earning the national average wage. Since it is now compulsory to put some of you salary into a workplace pension then this £30 would be gone too!

Its not all roses even if you're working a full time job!

£442 for a couple or parent with kids in London.

£442pw is £23k annually.

A single parent working 40hrs at NMW would almost certainly be entitled to a benefit top up. A couple with only person earning the same would also be entitled to benefits if there's a valid reason for the other person to not be working. If not they would be expected to work too therefore earning more than the couple receiving benefits only.

The UC system is now set up specifically so that someone capable of working will always be better off working.

Nobody should be paid more in benefits than a person working a 40 hour week on minimum wage. Why should somebody actually work for less than somebody else who just gets it handed to them. Its madness.

@saleorbouy

If you work a 40hr week on Nat minimum wage £8.72 per/hr, a gross income of £18137 which after tax with no other deductions would be £15975 - monthly £1331 or £307.21 per/wk. The national average salary of £30800 which net of tax would come out at £24586. - monthly £ 2048 or £472.80 per/wk Maximum benefits for couple or those with children outside London £384.62per/wk (20k per yr) or £442.31 per/wk (30k per year)

So yes you can receive more in benefits than someone working full time on NMW and only £30 less than someone earning the national average wage. Since it is now compulsory to put some of you salary into a workplace pension then this £30 would be gone too!

Its not all roses even if you're working a full time job!

But if you are a single parent on NMW you will receive benefit top ups in the form of working tax credits. This is my situation. So you WILL be better off than someone not working. I am over £100pw better off working than I was not working. If you are a single parent on minimum wage, you will get tax credits on top.

No one earns less working full time (assuming they are earning at least the national minimum wage) than someone in the same position (single, single parent, couple with x amount of children etc) claiming benefits. With the possible exception of disabilities. It just doesn't happen. People need to stop getting their information from the daily fail or Helen down the road who knows that Jackie's cousins best mate knows someone who swears their next door neighbour claims £8k per month

It used to be possible but isn't anymore. I guess a child maintenance claim could tip the scales but that's hardly a benefit

@Viviennemary

Nobody should be paid more in benefits than a person working a 40 hour week on minimum wage. Why should somebody actually work for less than somebody else who just gets it handed to them. Its madness.

This is what I thought before I had kids of my own.

The reality is with things like play schemes being so expensive £200 a week to cover summer holidays that’s £800 a month PER child. The cost of living in UK is so high a lot of people wouldn’t be able to live off of a part time wage alone. Even if the father does pay CMS...it still wouldn’t cut it.

The reality is with things like play schemes being so expensive £200 a week to cover summer holidays that’s £800 a month PER child. The cost of living in UK is so high a lot of people wouldn’t be able to live off of a part time wage alone. Even if the father does pay CMS...it still wouldn’t cut it

That applies to EVERY parent. Not just single/ on top up benefits parents.

Truth is, we used to save for the holiday care, we pulled in favours from family, friends and other parents to keep the cost down.
As it's said upthread, if people are unwilling to move to cheaper accommodation ( because of support systems) then they need to budget for the shortfall and use the support system.

Unfortunately we can't have it all, somehow we have to take responsibility for our own lives and finances. Yes, it's tough with young kids and there is never enough money to go round. But expecting society to put their hands in their pockets every single time is wrong too.

@converseandjeans

user I'm not saying I agree with it but it turned out some people on benefits were getting more than people working. Surely that's not right? It doesn't really affect middle class people but I think some on low incomes & zero hour contracts must have felt hard done by. It does however seem bonkers to me that you could get more on benefits than a family with say nurse, teacher, police person as the main earner. I remember DH was first year of teaching when we had DD so on £19k. I had to go back to work pretty quick. It never occurred to me that we might have had more cash had I not worked & we'd claimed tax credits. As it was we were on about £33/34k for a few years and just above threshold for any tax credits.

What about people like me - with a life-long disability that means I have never been able to work? Do people who agree with the benefits cap believe that on principle the disabled should always have less money to live on than anyone who is able to hold down a job? I have always wondered this.

@Ylvamoon no it doesn’t apply to everyone though CIRCUMSTANCES are different if you work part time and there is only ONE of you. How do you expect someone to save what they LITERALLY do not earn? How? Because the alternative would be to go on full benefits and not work at all. Take your pick

It sometimes seems like a competition and at times I have caught myself in the mist of “it seems unfair”. On the flip I’m also glad my finances are not as some others people’s who may be less fortunate than myself.

@Roastednotsalt - every working parent does have the holiday troubles both financially and time wise.

I did tell people what I did, granted its not for everyone... that's when taking responsibility for your own life comes in.
If you feel that you are better off on benefits, again that would be a decision to be made by yourself out of your own circumstances.

(... and that is why there is a benefits cap, as it should not be a lifestyle choice- we really can't have it all.)

@Ylvamoon you addressed the housing aspect and the cost. Even in cheaper parts of the Country what you are suggesting is incorrect. A single person who works full time is not left with LESS money compared to someone who is a single parent. Most people had more money and more ways of working easily before they had their kids.

You have not addressed people living somewhere like Doncaster what do you expect single parents to do? Not everyone has a support network unfortunately. 2 parent families you have TWO incomes!! UNLIKE a single parent household so it’s easier in many ways.

@Roastednotsalt - You have not addressed people living somewhere like Doncaster what do you expect single parents to do?

Not sure what Doncaster has to do with the benefits cap.
The point I try to make is, that we all have to take responsibility for our finances. We are lucky enough to have a welfare system to prop us up. It's people who take things for granted and feel entitled to more than someone who is working that are in the wrong.

@Ylvamoon a single person does not get more than a couple working with 2 incomes though. You have been told this repeatedly.

Even 2 parent families receive benefits depending on incomes you seem to be very misinformed here.

@MoonlightFlitwick often people such as yourself, who are unable to work through zero fault of your own, who are disabled through zero fault or decisions of their own are overlooked, and it's sad. Having young children is a choice and transient, yet those voices tend to always be the loudest in these discussions, often with the argument 'well the children have no choice', which is true; but neither do many adults who people seemingly don't really care about.

My DB is semi-similar, he had a very well paying career with lots of prospects, a beautiful home in an area he loved- and since an accident he lost his home, has had to move a distance away as it's the only thing available, will never be able to work again, and struggles to pay the bills. Funding for his carer was also recently withdrawn, so we travel to him as much as we can, but it's hard. And sad. I feel for everyone who is disabled and struggling financially, with no scope to enter the workplace.

If everyone who wasn’t working “just moved somewhere cheaper” we’d end up with everyone claiming benefits concentrated in areas where housing costs are lower and there are fewer job opportunities, meaning they’d be more likely to be trapped in long-term unemployment.

Or we can support periods through periods when they are unemployed or have caring responsibilities to continue to live in place like London and Manchester so they are then more likely to be able to find employment in the future.

Today’s benefit capped single parent is tomorrow’s cleaner, carer, shop worker, teaching assistant, trainee nurse, tube driver, doctor, lawyer, engineer...if they have the opportunities to do so. Which includes living in places with job opportunities.

@Roastednotsalt- a single person does not get more than a couple working with 2 incomes though. You have been told this repeatedly.
Even 2 parent families receive benefits depending on incomes you seem to be very misinformed here

You are making assumptions here. I simply responded to your post about childcare costs ... and that people are indeed responsible for their own finances.

Having yong children is expensive in time and money. It's the individual parents choice how to distribute the resources.

The state does support facilities financially but it's a limited resource, again it's down to individuals how to use this.

@Bubbinsmakesthree

If everyone who wasn’t working “just moved somewhere cheaper” we’d end up with everyone claiming benefits concentrated in areas where housing costs are lower and there are fewer job opportunities, meaning they’d be more likely to be trapped in long-term unemployment.

Or we can support periods through periods when they are unemployed or have caring responsibilities to continue to live in place like London and Manchester so they are then more likely to be able to find employment in the future.

Today’s benefit capped single parent is tomorrow’s cleaner, carer, shop worker, teaching assistant, trainee nurse, tube driver, doctor, lawyer, engineer...if they have the opportunities to do so. Which includes living in places with job opportunities.

It’s true and you can not just move to different locations and seek council housing anymore as everywhere is dire for council housing nowadays.The process is complex when I moved within my home town I applied for an area about 10 minutes away from my current area and I had to give evidence of family connections and so on. I didn’t get the house.

So I doubt people from London would be rehoused just like that.

I can't help thinking if the government just made childcare free for all children from 1 year old and wrap around care after school free too until up to 6pm with after school assistants employed to run clubs. Then they could reduce housing benefits to just for the disabled and with children up to 1 yer old. Parents would have no reason not to go out to work as no longer have childcare issues. If they choose to stay home then they should not be entitled to claim benefits. Top ups could be given for those who work 40 hours.

I mean, dp lost his (low income) job a year before the pandemic. I had just graduated and given birth. The UC money covered the rent for our cheap house, and the bills, but not food. We still had a pay council tax and I had to use ds child benefit to pay it. We were trying to live off £15 per week for food. At the end of one month we ate onion soup for 2 days straight. This issue isn’t new. I agree the policy should change but it shouldn’t change just for the pandemic period where a broader range of people are loosing their jobs. The issue has only now come to the forefront but this is something that needs to change for good. The only person who seemed to care about this issue before the pandemic was Frank Field. The question shouldn’t be, why is the cap STILL in place but why was it ever? It’s a hot issue now because there are more middle class people having to rely on state hand outs.