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)

The problem is the government are looking at the issue from the wrong angle. Of course work should pay, you should be better off working than on benefits but the OP a single mum with 3 kids in a rural area is unlikely to find work paying £500 a week or even the reduced benefit figure. The answer can't be to reduce benefits. That's how people starve. The answer is to increase the minimum wage and introduce caps on rent so private landlords and employers stop taking the piss out of hardworking people.

TheField yes you should buy new shoes. That is because the shoe has moulded to another childs foot.

The child doesnt need very expensive shoes but they should be new. Can you really not afford even school shoes from Tescos at £13. here

crohnicallyAspie it will be the HB taking her over the cap though won't it? What else could she be entitled to?

Her high HB takes her over the cap and if it's reduced because she moves she'll be under. I can't think of anything she could be entitled to that would take her up to that level of benefits without high HB- she's only got 3 children

twogoats maybe by the time you're a landlord you'll realise it's a business and not your place to pass moral judgement on your tenants

Everyone saying just move, it's not that easy, it will cost thousands! Deposits and first month rent along with the cost of rent at the place she's currently at.

Solutions on Mumsnet are always "just move" Kiki.

If only it were that easy.

I don't have kids, but me and my dad (my full time carer) have to live on £720 a month total. That has to cover gas, electricity, water, home insurance, food, car insurance, tax, petrol, tv licence, phone line, internet (since i can't be expected to stare at the walls all day) and clothing etc. It's my birthday sunday, and you an guarnatee there won't be presents, just like w don't celebrate christmas because we simply can't afford to. £1600+ is a LOT of money to be getting per month, and nothing to be complaining about! You have to cut out what isn't necessary. And if you have to move somewhere smaller and cheaper so be it.

The child doesnt need very expensive shoes but they should be new. Can you really not afford even school shoes from Tescos at £13

Not when you get heads find fault with the cheaper shoes because there is a small motif on them like that prat did last month.

Yes, QueenLiz, that is what they tell you. Personally I'd rather have a barely worn pair of secondhand shoes in the right width fitting than a pair from a supermarket where I'm not sure of the width. But then again, maybe I'm talking out of my own 'Clarks' brainwashed brain. I can't tell anymore. Each to their own, but this is how I economise.

HelenaDove What was that about with the head and the shoes?

I'm not sure if this had been mentioned but the local council MUST provide you with transport for your son, if his local school is full.

Phone the local council tomorrow and ask them. If there isn't a bus they will provide a taxi.

Maybe TheField but I have worn clarks shoes in child and adulthood, they're not all that good now I have to say.

Well then I need to have a chat with you QueenLiz because I am open to suggestion/persuasion. But on another thread maybe?

What about rent or mortgage MissKatie? Does that come out of the £720?

OP's income is also £700ish after rent is paid.

Rose, I am so in agreement with you. Up until recently, I was a Special Needs teacher (back in mainstream now). Respite for SN pupils has been slashed, as have specialists. Getting new equipment involved huge persistence. Parents who CAN'T work, as they have to be available at the drop of a hat, plus all the hospital appointments. Higher costs due to incontinence, needing larger nappies (which are only covered to a certain extent), higher breakages/damages etc. Absolutely give them my taxes, I'm not complaining at all, just wish others would stop bleating on about how they can't work for spurious reasons.

metro.co.uk/2016/09/07/head-teacher-promises-to-continue-uniform-policy-after-50-pupils-were-sent-home-6113685/

matchingbluesocks

In that case... Say she is entitled to £675 HB (75%) and supposed to pay £225 rent, but her HB is capped to £375 because of the benefits cap, leaving her to fund £425.

If she rented a house for £600pm, she would be entitled to £450 HB (still 75%) and pay £150, however her HB would still be capped at £375 because of the benefits cap, leaving her to fund £225.

She's now £200 pm better off! Obviously this is just an illustration, but the principle is the same. If her HB takes her over the cap then she is funding a lot of that £900pm out of other benefits. If she reduces her rent, her HB won't actually reduce unless it takes her below the cap. BUT she has less rent to pay so is better off.

Wow. Divide and conquer is really working here. We should accept salaries should be higher and that finding a way out of the benefits trap is almost impossible.
OP I think you are going to have to take a really varied approach to this. There have been some good money saving ideas suggested. (Not including the moving) could you try some of them, shave every expense going and save? Either the money gets used for general living costs or you squirrel away every penny (perhaps in a credit union?) and slowly, steadily build up a "move" fund. Two websites that might help if you search them are the resourceful cook and mortgage free in three. Martin Lewis money saving website will probably help. You're in for a rough period. I hope you can find a way through it. Pick all the best advice and ignore the stuff that upsets you. Good luck.

TheField I dont know an alternative but the last few pairs of Clarks flats I have had, both were too lose but the size down too small, I am always a 37 and always have been, the other pair had such a rigid heel it took the skin off the back of my heels and made them bleed after one wearing, the other was too tight over the front and gave me blisters on the front of my feet.

They are just poor quality now and ill fitting. But again for another thread.

*loose not lose

But ChronicallyAspie HB is covering all of OPs rent. She's posted her budget in the first post and it doesn't include topping up her rent which I would've thought she'd mention?

Light has been shone into the benefit system.
It was a safety net to help the disadvantaged. It no longer is.
Everyone knows of an injustice, an unfairness. Work must pay, the connection between labour and renumeration needs restored, because yes, we are in a race to the bottom. A bottom where millions of people have realised that they are better off working 16hrs or 24 between two, than slaving full time.
The people slaving full time are not jealous, they are human.
As Karl said - from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.
The ability and needs are very blurred today.

These threads wind me up.

Someone working 40 hours per week on £7.20 per hour earns a third less than that. You don't have it hard. You just want the state to subsidise a better life.

You could move and rent for half of what you're paying.

Oh yet another move, person.

Posters like you wind me up.

Fathers should be made to pay/care 50% towards every child.

The reason this is not law, is probably that most politicians are men (still) and it means a one night stand without a condom could mean men have to pay 18 years of support.

Few men would vote for that.

We need more feminist mps (m/f)