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?

babyjake To answer your question, yes. Annoying as it is. The children need supported. What do you think should happen? Maybe the money could be targeted better to make sure the children benefit directly but ultimately yes.

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.

I agree, and this (along with the fact that the powers that be do fuck all to pursue non-paying NRPs AKA fathers) dampens my enthusiasm for benefit reform.

That said, I live in a triangle of sink estates and the previous, more generous versions of benefits aren't great for the children in question either.

In the neighbourhood you see the same people day in and day out, and by the time the kids are 8 or 9 they are falling into a consistent pattern. Riding their cycles in the streets in packs, blocking traffic, swearing, making life miserable for shopkeepers, smoking, etc.

The system perpetuates an underclass. That's not fair for these kids either.

The foster care system would be flooded though. It can't cope. I also stopped at two dc. Work, save etc I do get your points.

I love the fact that people keep qualifying their support of this cut with: "But we don't mean disabled or sick people or people in genuine need*. It's like the Victorian distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor. Don't people get that this is a one-size-fits-all policy - that is what is so stunningly unfair about it. And if any of these hard working posters ever have the misfortune to fall on hard times they will soon find that out for themselves. Everyone is tarred with the same brush - yes there are a few feckless families around, but should be we shaping our social policy based on them? Imagine if the department of health started using the same criteria to ration money for the NHS (surely not too far off). They decide that because a few smokers are responsible for their own lung cancer all cancer treatment should be restricted - not just for smokers, but for everyone. Would everyone who is fit and not suffering from cancer pile on here and say "I support the policy because lots of people carried on smoking in spite of the health warnings. OK some people might not be smokers, but they probably smoked a bit in their youth."

If a child is born it is seen as a family issue and the family are expected to support that child Surely that is how it should be? Talk about stating the bleeding obvious. I don't expect anyone other than myself to pay for any other aspect of my life.

Tell me more really, I'm interested. Especially if you've had to deal with cuts in your income and have children already established in schools etc.

Surely that is how it should be? Talk about stating the bleeding obvious. I don't expect anyone other than myself to pay for any other aspect of my life

My mum was a single mum. Ended up on benefits after she got very very ill with no support (she suffered from PND after she had my sister because this triggered memories of the previous daughter she had who died at 3 months old. Escalated into bipolar, she had a abusive relationship, became alcoholic).

She had no family to look after me and my brother. Her mum died when she was 4, her dad left before she was born. My father disappeared when I was a baby.

So, she could have been left to rot and me and brother alongside.

However thank fuck the state was there to step in.

As a result I am doing very well in life as is my brother.

Should we have been left to rot?

I think a lot of people are "for" it, because the only people getting even close to that amount in benefits are people with multiple children claiming every benefit they can get.

As someone on ESA and DLA for severe mental health issues that prevent me working, and probably always will, i get less than 9,500 a year.

The view point i get a lot, is that disabled/sick people have no control over their situation and don't have an alternative, plus get an unlivable amount well below minimum wage so they understand tax covering those benefits.

When it comes to children however, people choose to have children, its completely in their control. Despite this so many have a child or multiple children they cannot financially support without claiming benefits on top of their wage/savings etc. Plenty also decide not to work even though they are physically and mentally healthy, so instead of earning any money, everything is handed to them for nothing. This "get everyone else to pay for your kids" mentality winds up a LOT of people.

Personally i'm all for the cap on child benefits. I've always been of the belief that if you cannot afford something, you save up til you can before you get it. Too many people treat having children as an automatic right, and get pregnant when they cannot afford a kid, because they know benefits will cover it for them.

Maybe when the cap is lowered to the point that benefits alone aren't enough to cover the cost of raising a baby, people will think twice and wait til they can afford it themselves.

Too many people treat having children as an automatic right, and get pregnant when they cannot afford a kid, because they know benefits will cover it for them

I don't think this has ever been proven because it simple isn't true in the majority of cases.

Stop saying that you agree with the cap but that people with disabilities should be supported. This cap effects those with disabilities who are on esa also. It effects those who had dla for good reasons but have been denied pip (because pip was created to cut 20% of dla claimants despite dla having the lowest fruad rate of any benefit according to the dwp's own figures). It effects parents of young children who have asd but who don't yet get dla as the hcp often won't assess until later and many parents won't know enough about dla forms to know to apply based on needs not diagnosis, these maybe children who only sleep a couple of hours in 24/who are at risk if taken out with only one carer present, & who may have siblings struggling as a result. It will also effect women stuck with dv, who may suffer mh disabilities as a result but are unable to leave their abuser due to the cap.

You can not be for the cap but believe those with disabilities should be provided for, you can't stick your head in the sand and continue to be blind to the fact that if you voted this in you chose to screw over the most vulnerable. And don't be stupid enough to claim that the money saved from this cap will go to those on benefits, dc has already scropped away the money that helps those on benefits- bedroom tax/esa cuts/pip cutting dla/access to work scheme capped/funds to hcp/mh/education/charitys all were cut previous to this cap.

Not read the whole thread but:

I think benefits shouldn't be given as cash completely. There should be a percentage as food vouchers, milk vouchers etc - alcohol and cigarettes should be able to be paid for with these vouchers etc.

People should not be having children if they cannot afford them - one child fine but anymore than that is just ridiculous to expect to be funded by the government. There are plenty of working families who would love more kids but don't have them because they know they cannot afford them!

*I think benefits shouldn't be given as cash completely. There should be a percentage as food vouchers, milk vouchers etc - alcohol and cigarettes should be able to be paid for with these vouchers etc.

People should not be having children if they cannot afford them - one child fine but anymore than that is just ridiculous to expect to be funded by the government. There are plenty of working families who would love more kids but don't have them because they know they cannot afford them!*

I don't know where to start with this

Tell me more really, I'm interested. Especially if you've had to deal with cuts in your income and have children already established in schools etc.

Like what? There is no "more". Our family income is less than 19k, before tax. We manage, pay all our bills, and I don't consider us particularly "poor".

Therefore 20k after tax seems reasonable to me.

The nrp thing- what happens if the nrp moves in with a RP with kids. If the new family is in a low income you could be leaving that family in poverty taking 20% of the parents income.

And yes, i know they should have thought of that before moving in etc, but as argued upthread, do you let the parents decisions or lifestyle choices affect the children?

It's an interesting thread.

Worth pointing out again that most people fall well short of the cap.

Regardless, as someone who's seen both sides it's also worth pointing out again that we're all only a major life event from ending up on benefits.

Anecdote alert!
(Me):

Worked since 14, full time since leaving education.
Had 2 kids that I could afford, married.
Went back to work full time within 6 months of having both kids.
The equivalent of almost my entire wage went on childcare for a number of years - I essentially worked 40+ hours a week for free.
Never claimed any benefits (other than CB).
Moved round the country to follow work (kids are on their 4th school now)

At 40 yrs old:
Got badly sick, lost my job (£40k per year at time of leaving) as I could no longer do it due to the nature of my illnesses.
Marriage broke down (husband was dipping his dick elsewhere etc).
Lost house as was tied to my job.

I went from married, 2 kids, good job, nice house, £80k per year joint income - to no job, no home, single parent, unable to do the role I was qualified to do any more.

The welfare state has ensured that me & my children have a roof over our heads, and money to live & eat.

I fall way below the cap (as do most).

For those posters who live in their bubble of "well, it's simple - just move/get a job/take responsibility" etc:

*Remember - your 'choices' are half chance, and so are everybody else's.
*
You cannot foresee what shit you're going to be blindsided with at some point in the future.
Be thankful for what you've got now.
Your health allows you to work.

If I had a choice between the life I lead now (benefits) and the life I led before (working, social interaction at work, shared goals, experiences & aims with other adults, the pride of doing an excellent job & providing financially for my family etc etc), I'd choose my old life every time.

I've been extraordinarily lucky to be able to have a degree fully funded, so that's what I'm doing now - retraining for the next 20 yr career I hope to be able to have, but I am one of the lucky ones.
Lucky because I have the resources & support to start over, lucky because my ex does his part & is a good father, lucky because although my illnesses cut short my previous career, they will hopefully not impede me from other things, lucky because my children are healthy & resilient.

Other people are not so lucky as me.
Don't vilify & judge until you've experienced or imagined properly what shitty curveballs life can throw at you.

Well do you live in London? Or have high rent to pay? If it is possible then be prepared to share more details. Why is it so easy? As you seem to imply?really

But what is the answer? At some point we (as a country) will reach an impasse regarding income/outcome payments. I do feel that a cap of £23k is exceptionally generous. And please don't tell me what I can/do think and believe re support for those who receive DLA/ESA/PIP. I agree with babyjake that many have suggestions re. Dealing with benefit administration but are too afraid of vitriol and lynch mobbing to suggest it.

I do feel so torn over this, part of me (maybe my selfish side) says why should people claiming benefits claim more than so many people can earn. But it's so hard for single parents to work and pay for childcare.
Maybe the answer would be to fund more childcare? I guess in the past family would have paid a bigger role in looking after children.
I think maybe it needs to be easier to work, better wages and childcare. Then less people would need benefits.
It's hard to see people who get benefits seemingly having a higher standard of living than you. Especially if you've had a really tough long day at work.

I am not going to share more details as it will out me.

If you don't believe me, fine. I didn't say it was easy, just it can be done.

People in work move around the country/world looking for better jobs, furthering their careers and bettering their situation, so why shouldn't those who can't find work at the end of their road?

They don't use the excuse of 'well my child doesn't want to change school'.

People should not be having children if they cannot afford them - one child fine

Why is having one child you can't afford OK? Surely if you can't afford something you don't have it?

NathanBarleyrocks I do truly think that would be 100% the best way but feel like telling people they can't have any children at all would be against human rights or something? Not sure. But yes, no one should be having anything they can't afford - children especially, in turn they become the ones who suffer most.

"But yes, no one should be having anything they can't afford"

That would mean telling about one in 4 people not to have children.

We should probably also tell old people with inadequate pension provision to euthanise themselves as they can no longer afford to live.

I get the impression that many posters think the only suffering children in the UK are the ones who will be affected by the cap. There are millions of children also just above that cap who already have less than desirable lives and whose families actually have less money than those at the top of the cap. So who cares about them????