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?

HA houses are as rare as hens' teeth

This. I've been on a social housing list for five years and I omen around 70th on the bidding list each time. Council houses round here generally have a couple of cars parked outside each one which means either the renters have been lucky enough to save some cash by only having to pay £360 a month compared to my £650 (which I have to pay a substantial part of from IS support because its the average rent in my town ) or that Cornwall County Council is now only letting to renters who have enough funds to enter the right-to-buy scheme - personally, I suspect the latter.

I don't think it is low enough. It should be set low enough that people are forced into work (e.g. £14k)

If you are able bodied you should have to work, no if's or buts, there is so much work that requires doing and not enough people to do it. If you are disabled i think it should be higher as that creates a safety net for those who really can't work.

Come, not 'omen' - clearly my mood is getting darker by the post!

it could be argued it has been broken for a long time. It is outrageous that not working can net more than a full time teacher or a nurse or police officer working shifts around the clock.
That is where the appetite for cuts originates from.

true. So where does my autistic son, who struggles with change, go for the remaining hours he's not in school? (three, in case you missed my post)

Isn't poverty defined as 60% median income, which is way below £20,000?

"It should not be the government's job to support people who are capable of work"

Should it be the governments job to support the children of parents who can't/won't find work?

How should they do that best?

Put the child in care? Or support the family?

You do know there are people WHO ARE NOT EMPLOYABLE.

There always have been.

The question is whether the children of these people should be allowed to live in severe poverty because of their parents' inadequacies.

"Isn't poverty defined as 60% median income, which is way below £20,000?"

That's meaningless if it doesn't take regional variations in housing costs into account.

Right, I've worked out I get £13,580 in total - that includes housing benefit, child tax credit and child allowance. I haven't applied for Diability Allowance for my son because I don't think he's 'disabled' (that's a whole other thread). So pretty far off the cap. I don't like being at the mercy of the state - I hate it - but so far, not one of you who resents my 'lifestyle' has offered a practical solution to my current situation (and please read the thread and my previous comments before you do)

disability, not Diability - Jeesh, that Omen slip up earlier just won't go away

still think its too high, should be paid in food vouchers and fuck all else - unless disabled, too many people play the system which is why we are a mostly failing country and a big % of kids have no get up and go

The ironic thing is it would cost more for the gov to take kids into care than it would to support their parents in the first place.

I do find it strange that people have short memories and just like when we had similar issues in the 60's, they'd be the first to shout that something has to be done to support these parents.
It's madness that these same people are calling for cuts and yet more cuts.

Jess no-one can comment on your situation as we don't know enough about you personally: your family, your background, your son. It would be inappropriate and could be very unfair and hurtful.

If someone is working and cant afford to pay for prescriptions that is the fault of their employer.

ANYONE STILL ON THE OLD INCAPACITY BENEFIT WILL BE PAYING FOR THEIR PRESCRIPTIONS.

namechange as you manage on £13K without claiming benefits, then why do you think other people on benefits should be able to claim £20K?

That makes no sense.

Also once on benefits, I don't think you should receive more benefits if you then choose to have more children. You should have to do what the rest of us do, work out if you can afford to stretch the money you have and if you can't, don't have them. I believe that they should pay for the children you have when you start on benefits, but that other than child benefit (which everyone gets), your other benefits shouldn't increase because you've decided to have more children.
I would've loved 3 or 4 children, but we can't afford it, so we've stopped at 2.

I think I would have been more at ease with the cuts if they weren't applied to existing claimants because those children are here now. It is them who ultimately suffers. I would be more happy to see any child related benefits capped for children born after 2017 for example. Of course that would still cause issues for those who have unplanned children or become widowed/divorced but it I am not comfortable with the idea of capping people's money and especially not when it is hard to get a bloody job.

Something needs to change clearly, but I'm not comfortable with those being on benefits, and those already struggling taking the brunt of the changes.

I have no idea what the answer is. Anyone who is affected (effected?) by the cuts have my full sympathy. I am exempt from the cap but my money situation is going to change for the worse next year and I'm panicking, so I know how scary it is. I do work but I am also studying, have a SN child and a disabled husband.

It's not about not wanting to work; as I've said before, I'd love a job because for one thing, it would get me out of the house, be able to enjoy a little adult interaction (as, contrary to popular belief, I don't spend my IS on 'nights out', but clothes, food, bills and top up rent), and make me feel a valid member of society. Not only that but I'd have a chance to prove my abilities outside of being a parent. Please, please understand - I am not choosing to remain jobless. I hate it - it's demoralising and posters suggesting it's merely an 'option' and that I could take any job if I wanted are being unfair. My circumstances don't allow it - and personally, I'd rather an ex partner who made working viable for me than one who threw money at us (which, I reiterate, he doesn't)

Sorry but I don't see where the family actually received £100k came from.

Changes that need to happen:

Proper social housing which is funded by government with decent rents. The idea that we just ship "poor people" to cheaper parts of the country is just unrealistic and quite frankly disrespectful. We want mixed communities not ghettos.

We need better wages. Wages which are not exploitative. To do that, we need better worker representation. It's funny how pay has gone up for senior executives yet has stalled for those in the lower ranks.

We need lower childcare costs. That means the government has to subsidise.

The government spends billions on welfare yet will not take the hard decision of fronting up to businesses to ensure that wages are sensible. If they did, less would be spent on welfare. The population would be better off and it would be better for the economy.

Insane house prices are a disaster in the making.

I see one sided cuts to welfare yet nothing done to tackle the causes. Nothing.

There was a recent report which said that about half of the budget deficit is because of the job destruction in older industrial areas. That is appalling. Yet nothing is done beyond crushing them further.

I don't think it is low enough. It should be set low enough that people are forced into work (e.g. £14k)

Most people on benefits work. You know, they have jobs.

jake. In Baby Jake's case, there probably should be a cap - that's a hell of a lot of kids

Should it be the governments job to support the children of parents who can't/won't find work?

How should they do that best?

Put the child in care? Or support the family?

You do know there are people WHO ARE NOT EMPLOYABLE.

There always have been.

The question is whether the children of these people should be allowed to live in severe poverty because of their parents' inadequacies.

I agree, but at the same time (as I mentioned upthread a bit), I don't think the previous, more generous welfare state did these children any favours.

If you live near a sink estate (me! 3!) you see the effects of a welfare state that makes work pretty unattractive. (a copy of my previous post-->) You see the same people day in and day out, and by the time their 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 benefit cap is part of a bigger picture though. The Tory Ethos is never to help anyone that needs it.

They really have waged war on the sick, poor and disabled in general. How sanctioning peoples money is allowed I will never know nor trying to cut disabled peoples money. They use starvation as a weapon its so wrong.

Museum of curry What are you doing that you can monitor people day after day?