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?

Just out of interest does that mean a family of 5+ kids would only get 23k a year and not 70k as I watched on tv the other day one very large family getting 70k ish. Just all out of interest.

Littlemonstersrule - So I was supposed to guess that I would get majorly ill in the future? I had always been very healthy and never ill before this.

The £23K a year cap only applies to non working families. Other families who work it seems the sky's the limit where benefit's concerned. That will be the family on £770K a year.

They also have ( out of 14 children) 2 with disabilities so they have unlimited benefits .

Morage - I think that in everything we do we should all think of the rainy days.

So - don't have a family so big you can't house/feed them reasonably . Don't overstretch yourselves. Save, if you can. Be wise.

Vivienne, that's where it falls down badly. They needed to extend the cap to include WTC. I know some changes will come with UC but so many just do the magic sixteen hours, choose to have one adult not working or go SE in an unviable business or manipulate the figures to take a tiny salary and then net thousands in tax credits and other top up benefits.

layla, I saw that programme too. The benefits cap did not affect that family as two of the children are registered disabled. The Govt are trying to be fair here (gosh...said something positive about the Govt) and exclude the disabled from the cap. Pity they didn't so the same regarding the bedroom tax but never mind!

Tbh I hated the programme for its moralistic attitude of "so this means they can claim Carers Allowance too" like it was a crime.

I get Carers Allowance as my son has autism and ADHD, I am getting sick of these programmes tbh as it seems even Carers are no longer deemed "worthy" by the makers.

They also seem to find the most extreme cases as well....did you see the Essex family? They went on and on about them all being unemployed. I can tell you right now that if I was an employer I wouldn't employ any of them. They were pretty much unemployable...but they still have to live and eat and have a roof over their heads.

And do t get me started about the co start reference to "benefit houses".

They are changing it. Not entirely sure of the details but they are.

lotus

That sounds good in theory. In practice his workers are on a special scheme to help long term unemployed/disabled people back into work. As I have a partner in work I don't count in the official unemployment stats and don't get jsa so I'm not eligible.

When I do start work though (on above national average pay) I'm well aware that we won't be much better off than we are now once I start contributing to a pension, make student loan repayments, commuting costs, other work costs etc.

Tax credits were supposed to encourage employment but they get reduced by 41p in every extra pond you earn so when you reduce income tax and NI from that as well as things like childcare you can see why so many are squeezed.

That will be the family on £770K a year.

£770K/year

FFS, I'm in the wrong game!

I do wonder if it was wise to exclude DLA from the cap. It works where the person is reponsible but many aren't and continue to have children they can't afford to support, move to expensive areas etc. The unemployed person quite rightly is being capped to stop them gaining extra but those on DLA or WTC not. It should be universal.

Athena, Labour may have sold tax credits as an incentive to work but for many they were a dream come true. All of a sudden they could work few hours or have one of the adults not work and yet still net thousands from other tax payers. They caused untold damage to the benefit system and showed just how flawed it was. It's not a welfare state if people can make choices and be given money with no consequences for not trying to even attempt to self support.

Fitting into a flat is relative. But, yes. It's a recipe for overcrowding. But, if you put the Tories in charge, you can't expect beautiful policies for poor people. We've voted. Now, we just have to learn to live with the consequences.

Littlemonsters, hopefully they'll bring in a cap limiting the child benefits to two children only to get round that.

The 16 hours thing backfired badly. It was intended as a 'better to have someone working a couple of days rather than not at all'. But it's become a joke when capable, able bodied adults are choosing to keep their work hours low and be topped up to not a lot less than if they worked more hours. It's also a very short sighed policy because tax credits, while putting immediate cash in your pocket, don't make any contribution to your long term well being, whereas if you're earning more, you're paying more into your pension.

Thank goodness the system is being overhauled. It's loopholes like this that need changing. Not taking money from where there is genuine need

I don't think it is necessarily fair to blame Labour for the growth of the welfare state, I do think it started with Thatcher, as a means to massage shocking unemployment figures by moving people onto sickness related benefits.

I do not support Tory austerity, by any means, but it is hard to get a tiny violin out for people who continue having children with no expectation or means to support them financially.

It is easy to forget that the welfare state was established to fight 5 giants that were holding us back: poverty; disease; ignorance; squalor and idleness. I think that last one is often forgotten. Even at its inception, the welfare state was intended to fight idleness.

Sadly, it has lost its way and if anything now props up low wages and very part time/insecure jobs. People are usually happier and mentally healthier for working and earning, so we have to try and get people earning, not trapped in an endless cycle of child rearing, for their own sake and that of their children.

I prefer carrot to stick, so am not wildly in favour of the benefits cap, but the level it has been set at seems high enough to be reasonable. However, it should be combined with proper training support to get back in to work and young people need genuine opportunties where they can see a way to make a life for themselves before becoming parents. Nothing reduces the childbirth rate like women's access to education and opportunities.

The £23K a year cap only applies to non working families. Other families who work it seems the sky's the limit where benefit's concerned. That will be the family on £770K a year.

It's outrageous. We both work long hours and even in a good year we barely make £750K between us. I don't know why we bother!

TWWK, don't panic, that was a typo.....they estimated the income at about £70k but that would include disability benefits too and housing benefit.
This family were extreme, most people won't be getting that and WILL be well under the cap of £23k.

770k a year my arse.

And only I think it was 55,000 families were over the original / current benefits cap of £26,000 a years so it's not a massive number.

Littlemonsters, not all children get DLA, if they have a recognised developmental issue. There has to be a certain threshold reached before it's applicable. The form is also a bloody nightmare to complete...30 pages of very detailed info plus paediatrician input. You don't just sign a bit of paper and get awarded it.

DLA won't affect the cap as you can claim it whether in work or not. I got it for DS while working full time and struggling to combine the two. It was a god send for me as it allowed me to reduce my hours and be around for DS which he needed, plus meetings, appointments etc. Currently I don't work at all as my son has gone to Y7 and its been rocky to say the least. I did manage to work for the whole of the time he was in Y6 and up to Xmas for Y7.

So DLA should NOT be part of the cap.

And this is what I mean about the creeping insinuation that Carers are scroungers too, it's subtle but it's there. Someone who I assume is intelligent has just said DLA needs to be part of the cap.....come and walk in my shoes for a few weeks and then tell me if you still think the same way. You have to do the whole lot though.....including the night time non sleeping bits.

Grateful, still don't agree so we will have to agree to disagree.

The cap is still huge at £23k, someone would have to work hard to gain that as a net salary so about £29k before tax etc. That's a whole load of money for not workng.

Lots of adults claim DLA and don't work, it's not just a childs benefit. Many don't live within their means and make decisions they can't afford to finance themselves. If we are going to penalise the unemployed, we should also put a cap in place to those on WTC, DLA etc to make it fair. Everyone should be treated as an equal. More equality means less moaning that x gets y pounds whilst z gets less/more. Everyone should have personal responsibility for their decisions.

It wouldn't penalise carers at all, £23k is plenty to live on. Millions have an income of this amount or less I would imagine.

TTWK I to will try again. The couples daughter who is the mother of the granddaughter wasn't able to make good parenting choices hence her losing custody. The couple did not make bad parenting choices by having more dc after being allocated their property with no bath.

Families with a disabled member may not be able to work. To apply the cap to those families would be an appalling policy.

Little monster being disabled isn't a choice.

ffs some people
DLA should be capped??
really?
yeah cos being so disabled you can't work is such fun.