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.

The £11k isn't for train fares and the like.

It's to make working worthwhile, rather than make someone worse off. People should be better off working than on benefits. They aren't saying he needs £34k to exist.

I'm a single mum with a child disability, the school won't even take him as they can't meet his needs (waiting on a special school placement), a child minder certainly wouldn't be appropriate or affordable if one existed as he needs one to one.
How the hell is showing me that working will make us better off, any good, when I can't work when I want to??

Should carers stick their kids in homes so they don't struggle financially?

How is taking from people who have no choice going to teach them a lesson??

conservatives love taking from the disadvantaged to keep them 'up there' and seperate from us common folk

Lesley, you are wrong because...

because capping benefits for larger families means the children in those families will be more likely to fall into child poverty, whih in turn leads to all sorts of problems - including meaning they are more likely to be long term dependednt on the state

because benefits are ALREADY calculated to be the MINIMUM someone can live on to cover basic needs for food, shelter, clothes. Inflation is going UP, the minimum needed is going UP, but they want benefits to go DOWN.

because claiming poeple will be better off in work helps noone when there are not enough jobs for everyone who wants one

because it unfairly peanalises people in some parts of the country over others, and yet to increase their chances of finding work, to stay near family support, and to avoid disrupting children's scholing, most of these families have to stay on these more expensive areas

because this is a change based purly on ideology rather than proper socioeconomic modelling of what will happen - they govt are doing this blind to get popular support, rather than because they have worked out it is actually a good idea economically or socially. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but noone knows, bcause they have not done the research.

because some of the large families claiming this amount (but not all, of course) are in this situation because of complex socio-economic problems including mentl health, substance misuse etc, and blindly cutting their money will further complicate their situations

because if families have to be made homeless because their housing benefit does not cover their rent and they can't find anywhere cheaper, the council has a duty to house them anyway, but it costs more to do it this way

because our welfare state has been based, up to now, on the idea of either CONTRIBUTION or NEED. You get something eiethr because you contributed NI to it, or because you need it. Now it will be based on neither - you can make the contribution, have the need, but not get it - because you have had more children, or have a more complicated situation, than Mr Cameron considers acceptable.

this is a change based purly on ideology rather than proper [maths]

Yes. Human sacrifice to ... umm, a theory full of holes the size of several small countries.

(the small countries to include Monaco, Luxembourg, Belize and the municipality of Zug.)

I still care about UK policies, and for himynameisfred, good on you, but I would ideally see a father paying too.

Garlicfrother, how much experience do you have of living in those states? THey vary so much, LUx is great with little children, it is boring but they give good maternity leave, and paternity leave, child credits and cheap childcare.

For Monaco you would have to be a millionaire to consider it...

Belize, I haven't got a clue. I don't want to live there.

Zug, not a million miles away, not a municipality, its a Kanton, low tax, not the lowest in the area and a bit of a commute to Zurich.

There are some really nice policies in Switzerland, like the high minimum wage. It means that if you have a job here you can look after yourself and probably a family as well. The difference between a teacher and a high earning banker is less here than it is in England.

They are all tax havens used by super-rich British individuals and corporations to avoid contributing to Britain.

goodasgold - I actually lived in Switzerland for a bit when children were small. I would never do it again. Its really easy to look at another country and choose the bits that make it family friendly. But actually living there I saw all the disadvantages as well.

I think it is a stuopid action.

people who NEED benefits (disabled, SN children, whatever the reason) should GET them.

I would be much more impressed if the gvt. could weed out those claiming benefits that don't actually need them (and yes, these people do exist, and I am not a DM reader).

I think a civilised society should look after the poor and ill, and this is just a lazy measure IMHO

The big thing I have discovered talking to people about the benefit cap is that people don't really understand what the 26k figure means. The people I have spoken to seem to think that people on benefits are getting 26k plus their rent, council tax, free school meals etc. They don't seem to realise the figure included all those things.
Often when they are aware of this and the figures are broken down for them it puts a different slant on things for them.

We aren't on benefits but are in a situation where we private rent are in a house that is far too small for us but can't afford anything bigger. Some of the people on these threads popping up have had the attitude so what people move house and their kids move schools all the time and tbh it makes me I am right now on the same dilemma move to somewhere with less jobs but cheaper housing or stay where we are with higher rent but better jobs and the amount of disruption to the children's schooling is a big factor in what I finally do. This oh but they are poor if they have to lose their house they can just move attitude really pisses me off.

The problem with expecting those poor people to just uproots and move is that you're not seeing the bigger picture.

I'm renting in a very expensive area and my dc share a room because we can't afford a local place big enough. Now, I could move to a cheaper area but then my kids would be in a worse school. And I'd be too far to travel to university where I'm retraining so that I can go back to work and afford to support myself.

It's a cycle I'm trying very hard to break. I was raised in a bad area with a mum who never worked. It was very easy for me to give up on education and get pregnant young (not on purpose for a house and benefits but still...) and with these cuts, it seems I'd end up back there with the high chance of my daughter repeating my mistakes. All the time it seems impossible to break the cycle, society will suffer.

It's not just about shipping out the poor people, workers and unemployed alike, to cheaper areas. There will be much wider consequences which are simply being ignored here.

"There will be much wider consequences which are simply being ignored here."

Yes think of all the kids living in one room of a b and b for once and what this does to the mental state of the parents and the development of the child. If anything this will cause social problems.

The maths do not add up. According to estimates by London councils 82,000 households-or a quater of a million people- are at risk of losing their homes or being forced to move.This would be the biggest population movement in Britain since world war 2.

And all this when we have: 1) A massive shortage of council homes.

                                  2) greater demand for properties than supply in the private rented sector.

The guardian expains it like this

"It is unlikely that the poor will be able migrate to cheaper parts of the capital: in Newham, east London, there will be twice as many claimants as there are low-cost homes. In Croydon, 17,000 people will be chasing 10,000 properties.
?The effect will be felt not just in south-east England. Before today, Birmingham had more than 37,000 homes with rents affordable on welfare. Now 34,500 housing benefit claimants will be chasing 23,000 low-cost houses, according to the analysis, carried out for the Guardian. On the Mersey, 21,000 people collecting local housing allowance will only be able to afford 12,000 homes in Liverpool.
Because welfare is set at Westminster, the cuts will also be felt in Scotland. In Glasgow there will be a thousand more benefit recipients than there are properties which can be rented with the government's reduced housing subsidy.?

So, where are they likely to end up? 'Temporary accommodation' It cost the council £400pw to house me in temporary accommodation. Plus I had no cooking facilities or laundy facilities and lived in ONE room with a 2YO and a 5YO. I had to use an expensive launderette and EAT out with the kids. If these people are going to eat they will have to give them over the 500PW cap.It will be just as fucking expensive if not more so.

Thanks that is shocking. And its good to read about a proper analysis.

so the defence for leaving single parent carers struggling more is that 'the father should be paying'.
So 'we created a system where you#'d grow up in poverty' 'because your sperm donor should be paying'.
Doesn't matter what 'should' be happening.
Surely it matters what IS happening. And the lives of very real children.

My son's DLA is supposed to be for activities, to enable me to pay for all the taxis to take him swimming etc.
Not to go towards rent.

This is an ideologically driven, spiteful and politically motivated attack.

One unnamed CONSERVATIVE minister has compared it to the Highland clearances and said it would lead to an exodus of labour voters from London. And Shaun Bailey, a CONSERVATIVE candidate who was defeated in Hammmersmith in 2010 had argued that the tories would struggle to win inner city seats because Labour has filled them with poor people.

Even the TORY London mayor Boris Johnson thinks so, he spoke out against it and called it "Kosovo style social cleansing"

I do not see what is wrong with getting the average wage. People will always have to make a decision about where to live -if they were offered a job in a different area they would presumably take it? If you are working you have to live where you can afford -people do not commute at fun. At the moment central London is only for the very rich or more, not those inbetween. If thos eon lower incomes have to leave central London then by the laws of supply and demand rents will go down, and wages will go up - if the poor cannot affrod to work in starbucks and live in central London, the very rich are not going to work in starbucks, nor will they be interested in the majority of the normal flats in central London.

himyname isfred,
what is wrong with both parents paying for their child?

And when focusing on people havign to move house, lets not forget that Labour told people in the civil service they ahd to either be fired or move hundreds of miles away. this was after 2008, when it became difficult to sell your house. No-one seemed to care about that, so why is it different if those who may have to move are unemployed rather than employed.

I rent an ex council house in the middle of an estate, my rent is £600pm
Last year housing benefit covered £595 after the cuts they cover £549 max.

I get £55 carers allowance but the majourity of our income is my son's disability money as he needs 24 hour carer 1 on 1. They know this.
But they're taking from us, regardless.

Sorry I didn't mean this thread to be about debating the proposed cap. I really wanted people to tell me why IBU to think the cap might be fair.

why I don't support the cap

For me I don't support it because they have made no effort to protect vulnerable people... and actually anyone really.

Anyone in work whose weekly expenses are more than £500pw, you lose your job no protection. You'll be homeless just as quickly as someone who has never had a job.

Doesn't really fit in with the image that it's a victory for the working public is it?

nothing is wrong with both parents paying for a child.

But to take from children who have no choice because 'such and such should be happening' is unfair.

My disabled son's father left the country when he was 4 weeks old. There's no chance in hell he can be tracked down for maintenaince.

I'm in the cheapest accomodation I could find!

ALSO

The way local housing allowance or housing benefit is calculated has changed everywhere in the country. You now only get up to the bottom 30% of the local market rate where as before you got up to the bottom 50%.

This has led current tenants to face shortfalls between their rent and housing benefit. It has also led to fewer local properties being available to HB claimants. It was already hard to find somewhere to rent as many buy to let landlords are not allowed to take HB claimants as part of their mortgage agreemants.

One PLYMOUTH tenant a single man who is on jobseekers allowance, has told me that he has £40 quid left from his £67.50 JSA to live on after making up his rent short fall. I researched local housing allowance in PLYMOUTH and did the maths and found this to be true.

I have explained it more clearly on the frothers blog if you want more details

toomanycuts.blogspot.com/2012/01/hidden-housing-crisis-impending.html

You'd think they might offer to protect the housing stability of CHILDREN so long as they're in reasonably priced accomodation.

Flippen evil they are.

London is a city of huge contrasts though - and still is. Behind all the big houses are usually smaller ones built for the workers back in the olden days. After the war sprawling estates were built in Chelsea and Pimlico as well as Knighstbridge etc - because they understood about social cohesion back then and realised to make and keep a city working you need your work force close by. Take Notting Hill - you've all seen the shiny happy film with the lovely houses but that is not the reality, there were no ethnic minorities, they didn't show the social housing in the area and NH used to be SLUM when i was growing up there in the 70's 80's - the houses were all badly maintained and overcrowded. Windrush families along with the Irish were crowded in together with an influx of Bangladeshies later. London needs rich and poor living and working together. A cleaner on NMW living in Croyden will not be able to travel on LT to work in Mayfair. Her wages will be less than the fares.

Also my rent on my temp one bed flat is £500 per week because the council who manage the building take some and the HA who manages the property take some - then they want their profit too! So the tax payer has to shell out over £300 as I pay £120 so the council and HA all get their cut - but I'm the one who'll be shipped out Fair? I work for our local primary with children whose first language isn't English helping the school to raise their standards. I couldn't afford the train fare in from some home County as well as childcare and rent. I work with the elderly helping those housebound. All my family and friends all work hard to maintain our community like we have all our lives. We have worked hard to build our area up paying our rates (remember those?) taxes, road tax, parking, shopped locally, worked in local business - all this contributed to society but because I claim some benefits none of that is now relevant?