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?

I read all the other points. And I can't even start to address them. Trust me it's best I don't or I would be rude. They are anathema to my way of thinking. Plus I told you why I couldn't engage earlier..because I had to take DD to GP.

It still doesn't seem to sink in to some that £23k is not a flat rate that every family gets.

It's a limit. That limit includes all benefits so if you get housing benefit its included. If you get ct benefit its included.

Don't assume we all get it. As I stated upthread, as a family of four, with me being disabled, we get about half of the maximum. So roughly £13k-£14k a year. We don't get help with housing.

Prior to dps accident we had his income of £17k plus wtc, ctc and cb. So we've taken a massive drop in income, not through choice. 18 months on we are finding it really hard to deal with the prospect of having to live like this indefinitely.

It doesn't help when I see posts assuming that we are all living on 23k and having a great life. It's not the case.

Because the children are here now and the government is taking money away that is used to feed and clothe them.

Exactly butterfly there appears to be an assumption that everyone on benefits gets 23k regardless.
Ridiculous!

Fanjo, you weren't the only poster that I was thinking of as avoiding points, and and if you don't want to address them then that's entirely your choice, obviously. But I'm sure you could manage without being rude if you tried, and saying you won't just comes across as if you don't have any good points in response.

We aren't talking about cuts to needed benefits here, which I can see being an upsetting thing to talk about when you're reliant on them, we're talking about a cap so that people don't get more than £23,000 a year if they are healthy enough to work, which seems fair enough to a lot of people.

I really couldn't. it doesn't seem fair enough to me. Most of what I read is people being jealous of what they see as someone getting more than them. I just don't think like that.

If families end up struggling because of it, why is that the governments fault and not their fault because they had so many children?
And because they may have chosen to have children when they were in a position to be able to afford it. Because they may not have thought it through, because they may have a learning difficulty and may not have had the ability or opportunity to have thought it through, because they may be in an abusive relationship whereby they are forced to continue to give birth. Myriad reasons, Ptolemy, none of which you, me or anyone else should be judging. It's the children that are going without. It's also been pointed out by the JRF, the ONS and other agencies that larger families (those above three children) are in fact quite rare with regard to full benefits.

Cross posted with you. I get that, but it's not so much that the government is taking money away in my view, these parents didn't have it in the first place for it to be available to take. And we are talking about people who are capable of working.

I work full time as a teacher, and work in London. However, as a single mum, I can't afford to live in London, so I live in Slough and commute to work. I don't feel that the state should top up my wages so I can afford to live in London, even though I would like to. Living in the most expensive part of the UK is not a right or entitlement.

To prevent worries about having your circumstances changing if you are laid off, you should have savings. Building these savings might mean moving to a cheaper area to start with. Benefits are a safety net, and are meant to ensure that you can afford the necessities of life such as basic shelter and food, not to ensure that you can live a particular lifestyle. I've had a few months on benefits before and it wasn't easy - but that's the POINT. It isn't supposed to be easy on benefits!!!

Ptolemy, exactly. It's always somebody else's fault never the person that made those choices. It's not hard to imagine that having numerous children and then losing your income will mean the children will suffer financially but many don't even think about the future. Likewise having children when you have no income or can't/wont work, it's the parent that puts the child into that situation nobody else.

There was a time people worked out what they could afford family wise and stuck with it. Nowadays so many people just assume somebody else will foot the bill and head over to the entitled site to see how much they will get.

Personal responsibility is a thing of the past for many sadly. The Tories are trying to make a return to it and the cap is a start. Does it go far enough, I don't think so but it can always be reviewed again and I am sure it will be. It affects so few though that it won't make a huge difference at present but does send a message at least that the gravy train is ending.

Many of these people cannot find a job. Forcing them to struggle so they try harder to find one is immoral.

How far would you make it go little? Just give them pennies? Evict them from their houses. I really think you'd see it differently if your circumstances changed.

Appalling views.

Nope. Finding it hard to think otherwise than many of the posters on this thread are quite vile in their views (not you ptolemy) and need to be ignored for sake of my blood pressure.

I'm not judging Dawn, it's impossible to judge anything without details. I can't see why children would end up going without on 23k a year tax free. It's a lot of money, and as has been pointed out, very few people qualify for that much anyway. But surely it's got to be a good idea to put a cap on somewhere so that we aren't actively encouraging people to have children they don't have the means to pay for? Otherwise, as has happened in the past, (even if only in a minority of cases) people will have more children to increase the money they receive.

Fancy, £23k is not a struggle to live on some household have that as an income from two adults working. To be given it for doing nothing is hardly an incentive to find work.

Jobs may be lacking in some areas but many just don't want to work or expect to hold out until they find a few hours a week school time only job. If I had to feed myself and children then being picky about jobs would go out of the window.

2 people who are unemployed would not get 23k.

I share your sentiment Little about a work ethic and that's how I was brought up. you start a family after you have started work or have some prospects and budget accordingly.

I know you can't predict difficulties such as unemployment or disability but at least you have tried to do the right thing.

Little

i take it you haven't expected other tax payers to help fund your childcare then? Or, you could name the charities you donated your cb to.
You know, because you should be able to afford your own dc.
Have you saved for every possibility before you had children?
How far away are you from ever needing to claim anything?

BECiAUSE PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES OR WHO HAVE DISABLED CHILDREN HAVE EXTRA EXPENSES. Can you really NOT work that out.

Because people with disabilities or who have a disabled child may need to find and pay for Carers.

Because the person with a disability might need care which means the Carer cannot work.

Because they might just live in the expensive South East and have a support structure there which means upping sticks and moving is not an option.

Trust me £23k is not a lot when you take all those into account....never mind the fact that you will have hospital appointments and ATOS (whoever) appointments and may well need extra equipment etc which cannot be provided by the state so you have to buy it.

I am actually scared that anyone thinks a benefits cap should be applied to the disabled....most of whom will get nowhere nar that anyway. If they DO gt that then I don't care.....and I didn't care when I was a HR taxpayer either. I just want people who need supporting to be able to get that support.

And believe me, support services are closing right left and centre. Perhaps all these carers should put their relatives into care.....and watch the wailing as you see how much THAT would cost compared with paying DLA and not applying a benefits cap. A clue......the amount a family gets is tiny in comparison to the cost of providing care.

I don't give a shit about the benefits cap.....doesn't affect me. I do however care about the people it DOES affect because I am human and not a fucking robot.

People are focussing on the parents here... Making poor decisions, serves them right yadda yadda. All very well, but what about the children? It isn't their fault, who is looking out for them?

Personally I think the only way out of the benefits mess is some version of the citizens income.

And two adults with no children would not get £23k.

One adult might get housing benefit, council tax support and income support. It adds up to very very little...less than £80 a week out of which they have to pay council tax contribution, gas, electric, water etc. they don't get those things for free. What's left goes on food...no money for extra luxuries.

It isn't much more if you add another adult in the same property.

So don't worry Little, they don't just pitch up at the the benefits office and say "give me my £23k".

Have you actually done ANY fact finding...or are you just regurgitating the crap you are being spooned?

There is this massive gulf on the thread between those of us who believ ein personal responsibility and those who think the state should always provide. We all agree that the current exemption for some disability issues from the current £26k benefits cap is fine but for those with no disabilities £26k and even the new £23k limit is quite high. Yes we all know it is a limit and most people are not up to the upper cap but a lot are - I quote from the long paper above 55,000 families affected by the £26000 cap already.

We arell in favour of the welfare state on this thread and £23k a year is enough for all families to feed their children. If they cannot feed their children on that then the money may be being spent on drugs or cigarettes. Today's Times has an article about the impact of smoking on family income for the low pay. Even the Tuppence to cross the mersey books - still one of the best descriptions of real UK poverty I have read - there was that same issue in the 1930s or whenever it was that the parents were profilgate and spent the money on smoking rather than soap.

I read Twopence to Cross the Mersey too Lotus, it made grim reading didn't it? And yes people did spend money on things they really could not afford to be choosing.

It isn't callous to say that the state shouldn't have to subsidise people living in places that they can't afford to live in.

There are plenty of places where 23k would be ok.