New £23k Benefit Cap.

[legotits]

AIBU to ask if anyone still supports this?

Which families is this targeted at?

Anyone who will be affected, is it even feasible to not be pushed into debt?

I'm sick of working 16 hour days, weekends, staying away from home in the name of work to provide for my family only to have to hand over a huge chunk of cash every month to subsidise other people to stay at home in a house that I am partly paying for with the kids that they can't afford to raise themselves.
Do feel free to have my disabilities and swop places then.

Dawn
I don't think anyone would suggest that disabled people should be slighted. It is the able bodied who people object to abusing the system. How much should a disabled person get? Enough to live on to a reasonable standard. I don't know what that means and it will be different for all. Assessment is needed and will always involve personal questions being asked. It should be about providing the appropriate care not about targets or private companies on performance bonuses, at the moment I don't think its working properly.

If there are no jobs in your area that you can apply for you are not abusing the system by claiming benefits.
Poor people and people on CHB cannot just move house to where the jobs are.

Most employers want people to work as and when required and people eligible for tax credits (disabled, lone parent, whatever) are not permitted to apply for those jobs.

I agree with it.

20 or so years ago I bought a house and worked FT and in a bar job 4 nights a week to make the payments. Friend had a child and had a new build LHA house handed to her on benefits. The bedroom tax and the fact her child is now an adult forced her back to work.

I run my own business now, also work part time and pay higher rate tax - anything to make a life on benefits seem less attractive is fine by me.

The first thing I would address is the number of NRP's who walk away from children and never pay a penny or share any of the childcare
Indeed. The poster who melodramatically claimed below that she and her DD would have to move into a hostel and she would now never be an asset o society made no mention of the DDs father - why isn't he paying for the DD?

Well i work full time in a low paid job and im happy to cobtribute to wellfare.

I know a number of families where this will affect them severely. I live in London and these are large families who are in private rented accommodation. They will lose thousands.

I imagine they will end up homeless, and wonder if any will end up having their children taken into care, because they will struggle to feed and clothe them on their massively reduced incomes.

The benefits system has protected these children from severe poverty up to now, but no more.

I live in a family where few people work. A lot of expectation, though!

So here it is, if you're going to cut benefits and potentially plunge hundreds of thousands of families into poverty which seems to be what people want on here why is nobody shouting that jobs need to be created, wages need to be at a level that is sustainable, childcare needs to be cheaper, rents need to be capped and only then is it reasonable to cap benefits to the point that they have.
I know it's shit having little money, we don't have a lot (DP works crazy hours for just over minimum wage) but do you honestly believe that the majority of people on benefits are the wahoos on channel 5 or in the Daily Fail? No, they're not. They're just people. Nobody chooses a life on benefits, it's not the life of Riley you all seem to think. I was on benefits for a while as a lone parent and it's not fun, at all. As for attacking people with disabilities on benefits, I am actually lost for words. How the fuck did they choose this life? To be so disabled they cannot work (physically or mentally disabled), and then be castigated by a load of Daily Fail types because they resent their existence? Have a fucking word with yourselves eh!

Yes. Londoners. They didn't choose to live in an area where property speculation has driven prices up beyond the reach of everyone except very rich people. They were born here, went to school here, their elderly parents live here. Their children go to school here.

But yes, they stupidly chose to have children they can't afford, and now they'll be punished for their stupidity be having to watch their children suffer the consequences - homelessness, severe poverty (because that WILL be the result of the benefits cap), being sent to live far away from family and friends.

I know that these parents shouldn't have had such big families, but you know I actually personally know these children and I feel sorry for the suffering that this will inflict on them.

Not the fault of the children but what do you suggest? Keeping paying people for every child they produce?
So what do you suggest? That starving kids and leaving them cold, hungry and without basic provisions is the way to go.

We live in a new world where people believe it's right that there should be no safety net for the most vulnerable children in our communities.

People on this thread feel that we should return to the world of the 1930's, where having a feckless or unlucky parent meant you grew up worrying about having enough to eat and clothes to wear. My mum grew up like this. Her mum was very young, three children, and a husband who went mad and ended up living his life in an institution. My mum remembers having one pair of pants which she had to wash herself every night, hiding from the rent man, being hit by her very stressed young mother who struggled to put food on the table for her three little girls. Apparently we need to return to a world like this because we can't continue to afford our benefits system while funding trident, conducting wars abroad and giving tax cuts to millionaires. Something has to give. And you know, the poorest people and their children, the ones who will suffer the fallout from this they don't vote

mini you're right and it makes me sad. Many of us are one job loss, one big unexpected bill, one rent hike away from the breadline yet so many behave like it will never happen to them. There but for the grace of God go I and all that. A society that would rather see children suffer because it makes them feel better isn't one I want to be part of.

"So what do you suggest? That starving kids and leaving them cold, hungry and without basic provisions is the way to go"

Yes - this is where we are as a culture.

Years of spiteful, angry and relentlessly anti-benefit news coverage has led us to this place where peoples anger towards parents who are mostly dim, unlucky, perhaps lazy, has grown to become so monstrous and huge that we're prepared to see their children really suffer.

Because make no bones about it - the majority of people who will suffer from this will be children, who have no control over their parent's life choices.

This change is about punishing adults, but it only really punishes

• those who aren't lucky enough to be in affordable housing
• those unlucky enough to have grown up in areas where housing has become very expensive
• those with large families.

I do not recall a single poster claiming there should be no safety net.

I have extensive knowledge of another EU country''s benefits system which is far more socialist in nature. It is contributory only. You must have paid into the system before you can claim anything. Some exceptions such as the disabled who are also not capable of working. The level of unemployment benefits when you're made unemployed are significantly higher initially than the UK and the level of equivalent of income support is also significantly higher too for those who suddenly find themselves go from stay at home mum to DV victim out on the street. BUT the difference is that the benefits are not for life here EVER, except for those who are too disabled or ill and incapable of ever working. For those who are capable of working, eventually the level of benefits do fall and will stop if you do not cooperate with the measures to get you back into work - there are several excellent schemes where low skilled can get low skilled subsidized work so black market gardeners, cleaners etc are very rare as it's in their interest to join the subsidized scheme. BUT the other difference is there is no child tax credit system either which rewards you with a "pay rise" for every new child you produce. You do get a further tax allowance for every new child but you have to be in work to benefit from that and also it is the same tax allowance for everyone, no means testing of it. There is also no housing benefit either.

Why does this country's system work so well and there is section of the population who have never worked and who continue to have large families who then produce more families etc etc like in the UK?

1. subsidized child care and abundant child care, from the age of 0 to 12 years, from 7-18, so that single mums, double parent families, rich and poor, can all work. 90% of women return to full time or 80% work and their babies go to nursery at age of 3 to 6 months.

2. no benefits for life except for the few true people unable to work

3. 50/50 care for children, including one night stand fathers!!! It's very hard to opt out of this 50/50 care. If one parent is poorer than the other, maintenance is still paid to the poorer parent. If a parent doesn't pay maintenance, the state does, then goes for the jugular with the non paying parent. No £10 contributions for those on benefits, they continue to have deducted the maintenance awarded as if they are working.

4. Social housing not to the point nearly everyone at the top of the list is "needy" but based on length of waiting, unlike in the UK which puts those at greatest need always at the top so those with lesser needs never getting social housing. Everyone needing social housing is in need. Pathetic UK system. And there is enough of it too!!!!!

It's dreadful that the UK has let itself go. There was no need to produce a system which rewards those on low income on child tax credits at higher rates with extra money for each child born. Those not entitled to higher rate child tax credits are not rewarded and of course those just about the thresholds end up worse off than those below.

So long as the cap is introduced gradually, so that perhaps when the youngest child in a large family becomes 5 or 6 the cap starts, so long as the cap applies to all new applicants so no new children born do not lead to more money, then it will be a fair way to implement it.

Without the cuts, things will go on as they are. People will continue to not work, have children they can't afford and live in areas outside their means.

How else do we stop that and and encourage personal responsibility that is lacking in so many? Nothing else is making them so something has to be done. The cut was really low enough, it's still way higher than lots of get so lots will still be better off with others paying for them.

Very interesting thread!

Both points of view put eloquently, but the general consensus seems to be that the 'deserving poor' ie the sick and vulnerable should be supported, those who have been dealt a blow in life such as redundancy, abandoned by spouse etc, should be given a helping hand to get back on their feet. But the 'undeserving poor' ie those able bodied (otherwise described in the Elizabethan Poor Laws as 'sturdy beggars'), should not be able to choose benefits as a lifestyle 'option' and/or on a long term basis.

I don't think any body would disagree that it is infuriating to work hard to pay taxes, often seeing less of family than they would like to do, in order to subsidise lazy scroungers (and we all know of them, they may be a minority but they are a significant minority).

However, the benefits cap - which I support, in principle - seems to be a very blunt instrument. I haven't watched 'I Daniel Blake' yet, hoping to see it this week, but it is heartbreaking to think of people like him, who have contributed so much, who lose everything, including their dignity, because they fall victim to a system, which they don't understand, because they've never had to or chosen to use it previously.

The cases we've all heard and know about people being 'sanctioned' for being ill, or missing the bus, or slightly late for an appointment for whatever reason are shocking, and a stain on society.

But what other option do we have? Surely a more sophisticated system could be devised. I genuinely don't know, but there must be a better way to distinguish between the needy and those taking the p**s.

That's interesting cannot. I have family born and living in Switzerland, their system seems very much the same. If a child is born it is seen as a family issue and the family are expected to support that child. If the baby is born to a single parent then that parent needs to work BUT the childcare is subsidised. The employers also pay well enough so that the housing costs are affordable without needing top ups with tax credits, housing benefit etc.

All my cousins have done well....some of them have very good jobs but even those who don't earn enough to live on.

In this country we are propping up poor pay and ridiculously high rents.

"but the general consensus seems to be that the 'deserving poor' ie the sick and vulnerable should be supported"

What camp do the children of the 'undeserving' fall into?

They will make up the majority of individuals affected by the benefits cap.

Jelly,
"If there are no jobs in your area that you can apply for you are not abusing the system by claiming benefits"
Yes ultimately by not moving to stay employed you are abusing the system. Why is it someone else's responsibility to get you a job?

"How else do we stop that and and encourage personal responsibility that is lacking in so many?"

The entire south east is now unaffordable for all the hundreds of thousand of people working in those jobs essential to keep the south east functioning properly.

That's where we are.

Interesting comparisons Cannotseeanend. Our social housing used to be let on a waiting time basis, but it changed to those with the most 'need' in the eighties. Our unemployment benefits used to be based on previous earnings, for a period, but that was ditched too.

A genuinely 'single' parent surely means there is no other parent? Even if only one is bringing up a child, the other has a duty to share the cost if not the care. Widow/ers and single adopters of course have sole responsibility. If people planning to have a child had to show half the responsibility that prospective adopters must demonstrate, perhaps there would be fewer children in poverty.

We had some real downturns in our fortunes, DH went from being a sole provider for the family to earning very little, so I had to work. Jointly we earned enough to support our children. He also had some major health issues, but managed to work part time. Most parents do work, but there is a hard core in some areas where 'full time mummy' is seen as a career for life, even when the mummy has no health or disability issues. More genuinely affordable childcare is desperately needed, to make work pay.

"Yes ultimately by not moving to stay employed"

Yes, move to London. Plenty of jobs here.

Just fuck all affordable housing.

You will be met by the tide of poor people moving in the opposite direction. They've been told to leave their communities and seek out cheap housing.

So, which areas have loads of jobs and cheap housing, and can accommodate an extra million or so families who need both?