To think that a 23k benefits cap will drive some families in the SE

[Minifingers9]

... Into destitution?

I live in a pretty unappealing and comparatively cheap part of greater London but you can't get a 3 bedroom rental for under £1400 a month.
If we lost our jobs we wouldn't be able to live on 23k a year as a family of 5. Not when 15k of it was going on rent.
Why don't they have regional benefit caps?

It not about undeserving poor, I'm sure that couple are very nice people because I have no reason to think otherwise.

What I object to is the way that their problems are all blamed on the government as if they had no choice in their position and have no responsibility to fund themselves and the numerous children they chose to create.

The whole tone of the thing is wrong.

Agreed, Saucy.

But someone will be along to complain that you're a Daily Mail reader who thinks that only rich people get to "breed", because having 1 or 2 or even 3 children is not actually an adequate number.

It's not doing right by people though. It's exactly the attitude that comes across in that article that makes people lose sympathy, and by extension creates support for benefit cuts.

Can you really not see that?

It's not pure entitlement or bonkers. It's the welfare state which prevents people living in unacceptable living conditions.

I think the way the benefit system has gone since the 80s has encouraged people to rely too much on the state and to be irresponsible in regard to family planning. once you have that assistance from the state it probably gets taken for granted.

We have 3 dc, would have loved another but couldn't afford a bigger house or to have another one so we didn't

Fanjo, do you think two weeks in temporary housing and then a 3 bedroom house is unacceptable living conditions?

If you get £29k income from a job and still need top ups then there is something wrong with the system. I agree that rents and the cost of living is too high but it is because there is a floor on what landlords can charge and benefits (and loose credit) push up costs for everyone who doesn't get benefits or rely on credit. It makes having a well paying job almost not worth it once you factor in all the other associated costs (travel etc) and all the satellite benefits those on benefits get for free (prescriptions, free school meals etc etc).

People making choices they could afford and only relying on the welfare state when circumstances beyond their control happen would also prevent people living in unacceptable living conditions.

For this family, only having the children they could afford to pay for out of their one wage would have prevented unacceptable living conditions.

Why is it the states responsibility and not theirs?

It's surprises me how many people are shocked by this, it's been signalled since before that last election that benefits would be capped.

This thread has reminded me of a thread back end of last year with a woman who had DCs already but really wanted another, she was planning another via a donor, she did work, but would need to rely on tax credits to make it financially viable. There were people saying it was a terrible thing to do, to delibrately have DCs she 'couldn't afford' and shouln't have more unless she could do so without relying on benefits. Others were saying she should have the number of DCs she wanted. Few people were pointing out she should only have another DC if she could do it without Tax Credits because if the Tories won a second election, the chances are the benefits system currently in place wouldn't be the same over the next few years, and you couldn't rely on any benefit still exisiting in 3-4 years time.

Those people were shouted down by the "have as many as you like" brigaide, and the OP didn't seem to take on board that she couldn't rely on benefits remaining available to her, just engaging in the "should/shouldn't have DCs you can't afford" debate.

I think it's very foolish for anyone to have a large family they can't afford to support on their own income and be confident of surviving a few years unemployement without benefits now, it's not a moral quesiton anymore, it's more this government will be slashing lots of benefits, and this is a popular policy - £26k is the average wage, lots of people earn less than that in other parts of the country and manage to support families on it, being told that the equiviliant of £30k income is 'destitute' for Londoners so they should pay more tax to fund bigger benefits for those more 'deserving Londoners' isn't going to gain a lot of sympathy amongst those people. (Even if it is true that it's hard for a larger family to live off that if they have other reasons that keep them stuck in London)

This thread has reminded me of a thread back end of last year with a woman who had DCs already but really wanted another, she was planning another via a donor, she did work, but would need to rely on tax credits to make it financially viable.

Unbelievably poor judgement.

The link to the family in The Mirror who arebeing evicted states problems like:

They need to keep two cars running - NO THEY DON'T! They choose to. They don't need one car never mind two.

They only have one shower- so what? They have a shower. Why do they expect to have choices about bathroom fittings? They don't pay for the house.

The man says he thinks he should be provide with a suitable home - he means a house that suits them. Why did they have all of those children when the most money they ever had was one wage from Asda?

This is sheer ENTITLEMENT culture. They take but they think they have no responsibility to provide for themselves. The house is a tip outside- they don't mow the lawn even, bikes are just chucked in the garden. One of the two cars is parked on the lawn.

Incidentally, one of them is leaving the house with a Waitrose bag!!!

If they sold the cars, they could pay the rent.

Lulu, I doubt you'll get much of a response from the poster who linked the article.

I must admit I noticed the Waitrose bag.

The two cars and one shower thing really does make their attitude laughable.

Yup LuluJakey1, even the benefits calculator is called "entitled to". Says it all.

"Yup LuluJakey1, even the benefits calculator is called "entitled to". Says it all."

This would be actually hilarious if it wasn't the stupidest comment I've ever seen on MN. Ever.

The first benefits cap to £26k (£34k of pre tax income for we full time working tax payers) has been in operation for some time. Here is a link to a report on it www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/386198/rr894-post-implementation-effects-of-benefit-cap-wave-2.pdf

and www.gov.uk/government/news/benefit-cap-200-people-into-work-or-off-housing-benefit-every-week

55,500 households so far affected by the higher cap of which 40% have moved into work.

"The policy was introduced in April 2013 and most recent estimates suggest that it will save almost £225 million over 2 years.

Over 55,000 households have had their benefits capped and, of these, almost 3 in 5 households are no longer subject to the cap.

Before the benefit cap, 300 of the highest claiming families got over £9 million in benefits every year.

Recent research published showed that the cap is motivating people to find work. For example:

those who would be impacted by the cap are 41% more likely to go into work than a similar group who fall just below the cap’s level, but this trend didn’t exist before the cap was in place – indeed those with higher weekly benefit used to be less likely to move into work
38% of those capped said they were doing more to find work, a third were submitting more applications and 1 in 5 went to more interviews
where households said they intended to seek work because of the cap in February 2014 (45%), by August the vast majority of them (85%) had done so
2 in 5 (40%) of those who said they had looked for work because of the cap in February actually entered employment by August"...

"To increase the incentives for claimants to move into work, households where someone is entitled to a Working Tax Credit are exempt from the benefit cap.

All households with someone, including a child, in receipt of a disability-related benefit are also exempt from the benefit cap recognising the extra costs disability can bring".

You have to be really very rich and high earning to believe that there is a high chance you will be able to provide for three or more children right into their adulthood without needing state help
Ptolemy you state the same thing on every benefits thread, and on every thread I tell you about my not particularly unusual situation. Two workers bringing in over 90,000. Two children, wanted more, could afford more, went for three, had twins. Twins got to 12 and dh becomes ill. Two years later so ill, I had to stop work, but it's okay, we have savings. Savings have gone. Insurances didn't pay out, so many caveats. So, here we are on benefits. Nothing to do with lack of planning, being greedy, being selfish or not wanting to work. Walk a mile, ptolemy, please.

"be confident of surviving a few years unemployement without benefits now.."

Seriously, how many people can survive a few years unemployment without any benefits? Very very few. This would mean having to save £30k to £40k. A lot of money. How many people have this in savings?

Good god. They have a shower between 9. How entitled. They should just have a bucket of water, ideally cold.

Why do they need two showers?

They aren't saying they need 2 showers. They are saying it would be easier to bathe the younger kids if they had a bath.

It's not entitled to have one shower between 9 people. It does display an attitude of entitlement when you complain about having one shower between 9 people when that the situation you chose to create.

Any chance if you answering any of the other questions or points that have been put forward Fanjo?

And Dawn, on every thread I repeat that no one is complaining about benefits that people with disabilities receive (except maybe to say that they aren't high enough) and that's especially true on a thread that is about a benefits cap that doesn't apply to households with disabled family members. And the 'walk a mile' argument has got really boring, especially since the worst and unexpected did happen to my family and we have found ourselves supported very generously by the welfare state.

LotusLight I fear you are being somewhat disingenuous in your post from 4:30 yesterday afternoon where you say:
"...secondly why I have never been able to afford to live near work and in central London for 30 years and have always commuted in like most workers whereas those on benefits do"

If you can afford the £1m divorce payoff, 5 sets of private school and uni fees and an island that you have mentioned in the past, then you surely could afford to live near your work. Your spending priorities are of course yours to set as you see fit, but I do not think it is right to pick and choose which parts of those priorities you share when making a post berating others. Not being able to have those things and live in central London really is not the same as not living near enough to work that you can afford to get there and still eat that month.

Unless of course I have misunderstood and even owning an island doesn't mean you can afford London prices, in which case the property market has gone truly batshit

Ptolemy - Except benefits and services for the disabled have been cut.