To wonder if I am wrong about benefits cap?

[lesley33]

I have been reading a lot about the proposed benefits cap of £26k. Initially my reaction was that this seemed totally fair. But the more I think about it the more I wonder if I am wrong. Why do people genuinely think this is not fair?

Just to say that £26k is the equivalent of a £35k wage. And many people already have to move to cheaper housing when their wages or hours are reduced. According to estimates this will affect 50,000 households.

£35k (gross) seems more than reasonable to me. It is difficult, whilst I am against the majority of the cuts that the government are making I do think that there does need to be an upper limit.

It is sad that some families will have to face the upheaval of leaving their homes but lots of families have already had to face this because they have been repossessed etc. I know that I have had sleepless nights racking my brains thinking about whether we should relocate and worrying about how we will make ends meet.

I don't like the glee that some people take when benefit cuts are announced. I don't think there is any satisfaction to be had from knowing that families are having to go through hardship. It is actually quite depressing.

I think benefits should be a safety net and not a way of life. You are not helping people help themselves by making it more cost effective not to work. I agree that we live in a society and that we should 'look out' for each other when times are hard for everyone why should some people get a free ride?

I think the benefits cap is one way of making things fairer in society.....?

Sorry I was actually wanting people to tell me why the benefits cap is wrong - not have another debate about it.

The simple matter is that with rents in London and the South East being extortionate it will unfairly impact on those who out of necessity have to live in these areas. Housing Benefit will take up a huge swathe of living costs - I have heard of some people who on those figures will end up with £35 left for food, clothes and utilities after rent, council tax etc is paid.

It's wrong that a huge chunk of that is lining a landlord's pocket.
The limit shouldn't have to be that high, no.

Okay thanks, that isn't okay. I guess then it is confined to a few places geographically as most places have quite low limits on the maximum hb that can be applied for.

It isnt so much that its wrong imo, I dont think anyone would disagree with stopping the culture of more money for each child. After all people who are earning a wage dont get a wage rise when they have a baby!

The main problem for me is that it is all geared to discourage people to choose a benefits life instead of a working life. I agree with the principle but unfortunately there simply arent enough jobs and certainly not in poor areas where alot of the families who will be worst affected are living, thats why they are poor areas! there are approx half a million job vacancies in the UK at the moment and 2.5 million people chasing them and thats just the official unemployed figures, it doesnt include the hidden unemployed such a SAHP looking to return to work who arent signing on.

Without jobs for claimants to go to, all that will happen is that the same people will still claim but will be worse off and will affect their families adversely. It has already been admitted by the government that thousands of families will become homeless and that in itself will cost the government a fortune. Imo it is a short term knee jerk reaction to a long term problem and it wont work.

STOP IT. Stop it now. Please. I cannot take anymore. Post on one of the many, many existing threads on this topic if you have something to ask.

All this thread will do is have yet more numpties whining about how them down the road get more for less and it's not fair, whilst stamping their feet and flailing their arms like a small child who thinks his sibling has more pudding.

There are plenty of points on existing threads that will answer your question, Lesley.

I don't know what to think, or if it's wrong or right :(
All i know is that i live in west mids with my 2 younger chuildren and with my income support, tax credits, housing benefit and council tax benefit .... my benefits are LESS than half of £26k. I'd need a pretty hefty rent to reach the £26k cap.

This is the reason there's so much debate.

You have families all over the country, with different circumstances discussing it. People aren't looking at it from the same point of view.

The benefits cap is wrong because it will have little impact on the biggest problem facing the country, the debt crisis. It is being used by the government to keep everyone focused on one hand so they can't see what the slimey gits are doing with the other.

The thread title was hardly ambiguous D0oin, if you are sick of these threads then dont read them! Clearly the OP doesnt feel that her question has been answered on the other threads, as you would have to dead from the neck up to miss them.

Are you the thread police?!

Thanks. No I didn't feel it was answered. I have actually read all of the posts on the other thread, but because there is so much slagging going off it isn't imo very reasoned. So I didn't actually want a debate on this thread - just posts telling me why I was wrong.

It makes sense though taht everyone is posting with their geographical area in mind. In my area 26k would be a lot for anyone, even with lots of kids, to be getting as housing si relatively cheap. But obviously not the case in London.

Don't see how it is wrong if there are those on a £35K salary having to survive in these areas.

Unless the only people living in these areas are bankers/footballers and benefit claimants I fail to see how anybody can argue against a £35K cap on benefits.

That's just the thing.
Around here you're looking at rents not far shy of £2 grand per month for a boggo standard family house. Not a mansion. It's an affluent area but guess what it still needs cleaners, binmen as much as the next place.

The level of WORKING people in this area on HB out of necessity due to house prices is around the 80% mark - unemployment is actually very low where I live. It's rising though.

The only ones to profit are the Landlords.

Apols for re-posting myself from another thread.

Out of curiosity, I did a Turn2Us calculation for a 35-year-old couple with a SAHM and five children (all healthy, no childcare) living somewhere like Wandsworth in a mortgaged home. My fictional man earns £35k and pays £150 a month to his pension plan.

They were entitled to just over £11k in benefits. So, although his take-home pay was slightly over £22k, the state tops him up to £34k net. This is bizarre because it shows the government accepts his family needs £34k but seems to think the same family will need £8k less than that if he loses his job or gets injured - £667 a month less? They'll lose their home.

The point, as ever, I guess, is that you need a certain amount to live on in Britain however much you earn. I also don't understand why it's a flat ceiling - families in Merthyr Tydfil won't be affected - but there isn't any work there - while people in London, where at least there are jobs, will suffer.

Just looks totally irrational to me

garlicfrother - working does cost money though - commuting costs, smarter clothing needed for work, union subs, parking fees, etc etc

So someone who is not working will not have to pay out that - although £667 pcm is not typical of that figure I guess

He would need less because he isn't working, though £8k difference does seem a lot it won't be the real difference.

If the 5 children are school age they'd be eligible for FSMs. £10 a week per child, so £50X39 weeks = £1950

He wouldn't need to travel every day, so less on petrol/bus/trains.

Reduced payments into pension while not working?

There's probably £10-£20 a week in incidental expenses, meals, dry cleaning. So £500-£1000 a year.

They could be eligible for other grants/concessions while he is unemployed.

I stand corrected - rail season ticket Northampton (nearest station to us) £540 pcm, parking season ticket £120pcm. That's before you take into account petrol to get to station, wear and tear on the car, tube fairs etc

Bloody hell, OE! That kind of illustrates the problem with people moving to cheaper areas. doesn't it?!

I get your point, Totem, but still feel there's a sypocrisy in it. If the govt is so sure his family needs £34k net, it gives him £11k to bump up his wages, there doesn't seem to be much excuse for saying they only need £26k when unemployed. The £11k isn't for train fares and the like.

The underlying problem with all of this is that the welfare economy is subsidising low wages high prices. Even in the case of Mr Fictional, who's on a decent income. Think how much it's paying out across the nation, with so many earning minimum wage or less.

"sypocrisy" - I've invented a word

one point of the arguement is that people can move or downsize their housing so there housing benefits match the cost of the house. Itis an arguement I hear over and over. But there is no afforable housing particulary in london or the south west. Poor people are being pushed out of the nicer areas. Leaving London for the rich. Maybe this was the plan along.

Garlic has pointed out the utter hypocrisy of this government. In his speech to Asda workers yesterday, Shiny Dave did not once mention in work benefits. He was completely fixated on the unemployed. I bet most of those he was preaching to claim Working Tax Credits yet still support what he said. The necessity of WTCs prove that wages are too low, and the cost of property too high.

Here's an advantage of fixating on the unemployed, Hedley: It diverts attention from the ££billions of unclaimed benefits. I bet those Asda workers would qualify for housing benefit but most don't know it. They can all clamour for the lazy scroungers to have their benefits ripped away and they'll lose theirs, too. As long as he doesn't tell them they're entitled, they won't miss what they didn't get

I think it's unfair that £44 of my son's DLA now has to go towards the monthly rent because the housing benefit has gone down.