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?

Suppermummy - I am saying that, according to Hackney Law Centre, they are advising two sets of ill parents with 4 -6 children today somewhere in East London (who will have no money to move anywhere) who are facing eviction because the benefits cap reduces their benefit to such an extent there is no HB. What happens to that family today? They are clearly not well enough to work (or they would not be on ESA). They are ill- what happens to them? What happens to the children?

You like the cap- you own the consequences. So what is your solution?

There's always been a cap, are people really that stupid? It is stupidity to chat on about something you don't know about, being told you are wrong, and not learning about it.

Nobody is complaining about a cap, they are complaining about the constant lowering of the cap, forcing people into poverty.

Have we learned nothing from the past? Do we want children separated from their parents and taken into care because the parents can't afford to keep them?
Perhaps some of you would welcome workhouses again.

Comforting did you miss the part where the parents are ill. The children will be damaged when they are hungry and cold because mum is to sick to work!

Oh and homeless.

Because Supper the quiz demonstrates that we aren't talking about feckless people who are out of work.

Most people have jobs. Others cannot work.

The alternative to an overall cap is individual caps to individual benefits.

Or a more radical alternative is for employees to not just roll over and accept low pay. However that is impossible without unions.

It is ludicrous that we have a minimum wage which is lower than the amount needed to live on.

Ludicrous.

Believeitornot, did the quiz you linked to, dont see how is about a benefits cap. And yes in the past you could get a benefit to cover interest payments on your mortgage (probably called something different). You still can but I think it has recently been changed someway.

Does the 64% of people currently on benefits in that quiz include state pensions of those who have previously worked and paid tax?

unlimited funds. Yep, that's how it is.

It wasn't housing benefit. And it wasn't unlimited. You made out that it was supper

Baby I think I got 8? It made me think about my assumptions. I do not blindly accept that the cap is a good thing and donnot blindly accept that people won't be adversely affected by the changes.

If we have food banks, people committing suicide because of DWP, DWP making ludicrous assessment then we have a real problem. A cap is not the answer.

user147 im guessing it will cause many children possibly including the family you speak of to be taken into care

Fourormore, we need to raise wages to a level that people can afford to live on without the help of the welfare state

I agree isn't that what everyone wants, the holy grail, but its a lot harder than just saying it. We have to get people into jobs, raise education levels, increase productivity.

Affordable housing is the answer.

www.mind.org.uk/news-campaigns/news/benefits-claimants-face-physical-and-verbal-abuse-and-widespread-discrimination/#.WCHTiaGnxpU
The mental health issues caused by stereotyping

user1471451327, you are giving a specific example that I know nothing about. My simplistic answer would be for the state to set them up in a housing association house somewhere else in the country where they can afford to live on £20,000 a year.

Ha HA houses are as rare as hens teeth

I admit that technically you can't unlimited benefits but its was still possible last year to get six figures which is symbolically akin to unlimited from my budget perspective.

england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns_/why_we_campaign/Improving_social_housing/Why_we_need_more_social_housing

What came first though? Low wages or benefits propping up low wages ie tax credits.
What came first, high rents or housing benefit?
Every thing is connected, if the government choses to subsidise wages and rents then employers and landlords get rich.
Ultimately the cycle needs broken, most will agree. Its the solution that is almost impossible.

BabyJakeHatersClub. I bet I can guess why you disapprove of Baby Jake and his family!

Personally, I don't entirely disagree with a benefits cap. What does piss me off is posters demanding that a woman takes responsibility for her own fertility (an awful lot of hormonal contraception can have both mental and physical repercussions) while suggesting men are not at fault. Also suggestions that the 'lifestyle' enjoyed by those in receipt of benefits is to be envied.

It's not a 'lifestyle'. It is existing, day to day. As I've posted before, all of you who resent our access to 'unlimited funds' - have a crack at it. Quit your jobs and stroll into the Jobcentre and demand to make a claim. If you're lucky enough to get that far (because you will be told you're unlikely to receive anything for six months because you left a job - and harassment etc don't matter a jot ) then you can sit back and 'enjoy' the 'luxuries' we can afford while you poor sods do without.

When I can work, I will work. I'm intelligent and a people person. There's not a job I couldn't do with adequate, preliminary training - and not a job I'm unwilling to do, either. However, with an SN son attending school for three hours a day, and an errant father who balked at the idea of raising a child with autism, at the moment, my hands are tied.

"it will cause many children possibly including the family you speak of to be taken into care "

At the cost of about 60K per child per year.

I agree that the cycle needs breaking but it doesn't not need breaking at the expense of putting innocent families in poverty.

supermummy your link states it is claimed that family are claiming six figures