To think the benefit cap is going to plunge families into poverty

[Firsttheworst]

Next month the benefit cap comes in. It sets out the maximum that can be claimed in a week across all benefits. This doesn't include disability or wtc. Its aimed purely at women (mostly) claiming income support. You can only claim income support if you have a child under 5 and don't work.

The benefit cap is in the government owns words designed to get IS claimants out to work. The cap is currently £500 and will be reduced to £384 a week.

This includes, housing benefit, CT benefit, tax credits, income support. So all in total cannot be more than £384 a week. Over a 30 day month that comes to £1645.

From that £1645 I need to pay

rent £900 a month (no I can't move, its impossible to rent on benefits as it is, not giving this house up and its below market rent as it is)

CT - £60 a month

Electricity £80

Oil £80

Diesel £ 120 (rural don't drive anywhere other than school runs and supermarket/town once or twice a week)

Car insurance £49

Car tax £19.99

Phone/internet £40 (thats a basic mobile and broadband)

House insurance £13

TV licence £11

That leaves 272 a month to pay for food, clothes, car breakdown, school trips, birthdays, miscellaneous and god knows what else. For one adult and 3 children.

AIBU to think that the government have just decided that if they starve us out for long enough we'll be forced to go out and find a job? Like I said rural area so jobs are rarer than hens teeth and believe me i'm looking. It is pure discrimination against single mothers with small children (i doubt many men claim income support)

This Govt cant have it both ways. If they introduce the benefit cap to force parents back to work, then they must uphold sensible employments laws to enable parents to return to work.

That means employers must offer fixed hours, fixed pay contracts.
Not as and when contracts.

We're paying £1200 pcm in rent. This was the only property in the area that was appropriate, accepted (partial) HB, and DH could get to work from.

All of these people saying "you need to live somewhere cheaper", it's not that simple.

user - I know you think it's smart to sneer at me and pretend to misunderstand my point. Tax revenue is not anyone's individual money anymore. However I can still be proud that some of the money I've earned and paid into the system goes to what I consider to be great things such as the welfare system and the NHS.

I have always supported our welfare system. A decent society will look after its most vulnerable. However I have recently seperated from my dh and I was shocked by the amount of money I am entitled to and I only have a couple of dcs so I do understand why there are posters on here pointing out to the op that they work really hard for a similiar amount. £900 a month rent is 3 times my mortgage! You have to move-could you borrow deposit from family? There will be ll who take housing benefit,keep trying. Re your ex I would deny access until he coughs up.

I am shocked at the figure of £1645. I've got 15 years work experience behind me and I don't earn that much. Still. Not saying that managing three kids on that amount is easy when your rent is so ridiculously high, but it is a lot of money in comparison to what most working people get. I can't manage much of a sympathy, sorry.

Those saying the OP is not unreasonable - how do you think single parents with a job that is over the benefits threshold but not more than the OP has copes? AND they have to pay child care.

Start your own thread for silly questions NameGot. Don't derail OP's

People really are going to have to stop having children they cannot afford. The system is not a bottomless pit to be pillaged for every woman or couple who want a child but can't afford to raise them.

It's not 'deserving and undeserving poor'. It's 'get a job if you're physically capable of doing one, the government actually provides top up childcare/benefits to enable this unlike many other countries.' Why is this such a strange concept? I would rather that wages were higher and benefits/services for those who physically can't work were decent than having to spread the limited money around so many who can work but won't. It's not an endless supply of money, so it should go to the most needy as a priority.

rebecca - i don't misunderstand your point at all and I am disagreeing with you, not sneering.

OP, YANBU.

Thankfully, we've never been on the side where we need benefits, but it saddens me to see some of the attitudes in here.

Personally, I think the benefit cap is wrong but when the voting public has been so indoctrinated against anyone on benefits, it's a popular policy.

To everyone saying "that's more than I/DP/DH earn!" well I can almost guarantee that you're forgetting to count things like tax credits into your calculations. Nobody is better off on benefits. OP wants to work - that is obvious. But when she's in an area she's unable to move from, that's difficult. She'd need a deposit for a new place, money to fund the move, money to fund potential things like new uniforms for kids and all sorts of other expenses, which is impossible when you're living on the breadline.

As for "get a job" - I'm sure OP wants that. Part time jobs to fit around school hours are hard enough to get as it is, and I bet they're like golddust in some parts of the country. Not everybody has family to rely on if they do a shift that conflicts with their kids' school hours.

You can get cheaper phone/broadband than £40 a mth. You could probably save £10-15 by shopping around.

£80 a mth elec is a lot. Look at energy saving or again shop around suppliers. I live in a 3 bed semi with 3 kids, run a tumble dryer and electric oven and ours averages £46 a mth in winter. Tbh if you removed the prepay meter the landlord probably wouldn't even notice until after you left

It's not easy to move but plenty of people on hb can and do move and if you get even a p/t a job in it will be possible in the longer term.

You could apply for your ds? to attend the village school. If they say no, appeal. It's much easier to get a space from yr3 upwards when classroom numbers are less strict. My ds didn't get into our local school when we moved. I appealed after we actually moved into our new house and his sister had already been offered a place. We didn't even get to the appeal, they gave him a space. Otherwise let them offer the next nearest school and use the free transport.

Have your shopping delivered. I pay £3 a mth for a midweek delivery pass with Tesco. Those things should save you quite a bit in fuel.

Hth.

Yabu moaning you need to act. I would sell the car and walk with DD myself to bus stop. Not sure about only school for other dc being 6 miles away. Sounds extreme. Cars aren't really necessary for shopping, you can have home delivery. Cars are a luxury unless you actually need it for work.
Otherwise find a job/ move nearer schools or for cheaper rent.

how do you think single parents with a job that is over the benefits threshold but not more than the OP has copes?

Not possible. If she secured a job paying an equal amount to her current income, she'd get partial top-ups.

We're paying £1200 pcm in rent. This was the only property in the area that was appropriate, accepted (partial) HB, and DH could get to work from.

All of these people saying "you need to live somewhere cheaper", it's not that simple.

Actually, the point has been made that it's difficult to believe that the OP is having such difficulty finding an entry level job in the London commuter belt. If rents are high, there's money around and that means jobs.

I don't think it would be easy for you to move OP.

I think what people are reacting to is you saying that just under £17,000 a year coming in when you're in a 3 bed house and running a car is being plunged into poverty. When many people are living on much less and working.

Council house list - no. Sorry to sound like i'm being rude but do you know how they work? Nobody gets housed unless they are homeless or medical need. There is no 'council house list' anymore. It doesn't work like that. I could ask my landlord to kick me out, then make him go to court to evict me, then present myself as homeless at the council offices, then make them put me up in a B&B for a few months until they find me a house. Thats about the only way I would get a house.

Xmas temp jobs - no. Retail needs flexibility, it could be possible with DC, will check them out.

Does anyone suggesting 'just move to a cheaper area' actually get how impossible this will be for the OP?

Take her three children out of school?

Away from her support network?

Find another, much cheaper property happy to take DSS?

Save up for a deposit and cover her moving costs?

I am a single parent & my monthly take home is £329 LESS than yours.
That is including CB & WTC.

I have worked full time since my little one was even littler & have worked my way up to earning a decent £26k gross annual salary, of which I am very proud.

I don't think a take home equivalent of £1.6k a month can be regarded as being poverty stricken...it is more a case of living within your very reasonable means.

Sorry that most of these responses are not what you were wanting to hear but I think people find it hard to sympathise when you are earning more than them & complaining about it when they & their loved ones are out of the house for 8/9/10 hours per day & are quite happily earning a similar amount

I think the over riding suggestion is that you need more financial support from the father of your children and a job.

As always the case mention benenfits on MN and its instant bashing, this forum is meant to be supportive and yes I understand this is in AIBU but seriously mention benefits and out come the mouth frothers to give people shit, instead of bashing the OP how bout bashing the employers, or the government that wont go after the tax dodgers but no, way way fuckin easier sitting in your naice ivory towers bashing others.

Sorry but another YABU here.

I would call £1645 a lot of money for somebody who doesn't have a job. The problem is that people who have been receiving more than that in benefits will have organised their lives, homes, etc to live within the means they had, so the cut will obviously cause problems for them. The government is right to bring in the cap, but is wrong to just leave people to get on with it. They need to do something to help those affected to be rehoused, etc, as it all saves money in the long run, apart from anything else.

But yes I do think benefits should have a cap. The idea being that people who are able to work should always be better off working than not - surely that's common sense?

OP I don't have all the answers, but surely you can see that, at least in theory, you need to move somewhere smaller and less rural where you're not spending £900 a month on rent; where you're not spending that much on utilities; where you don't spend that (whopping btw) amount on Diesel, and maybe get a cheaper car too. Is there no way you can do something about any of these things? Getting shopping delivered for £1 instead of driving there for instance?

OP wants to work - that is obvious.

It's not obvious to me. How hard can it be to find an entry-level job in the SE? Particularly when her children's father is around and seemingly unemployed as well, ie available for help with childcare?

People really are going to have to stop having children they cannot afford

Maybe they could afford them when they had them! then her partner cheated on her!

this is why the relationship board boils my fucking piss sometimes.

you get fucking pasted if you stay for exposing your kids to your weak lily livered cheater-abuser-accepting maternal behaviours, and if you leave them- you cant survive and are berated for being a lazy benefit scrounger

its shit having a womb

If the father won't financially help at all he is no position to complain when you are forced to move to a cheaper area to feed his children.