Tory Government’s benefit cap is unlawful and causes 'real misery for no good purpose', High Court rules

[Skutterfly]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/benefit-cap-judicial-review-welfare-payments-government-loses-lawsuit-court-case-judge-misery-a7802286.html

Finally

For eg the maximum housing benefit for the area I live in is £535 for two bedrooms. Looking on rightmove the very very cheapest places (and they do not look nice or even clean) start at £625. There is in fact one at that price. And a couple at £650. So you're already having to find £30 a week out of your dole to pay rent. And at least another fiver for council tax.

Rent is fully paid unless you live somewhere very expensive. Why would the rest need to come out of the £125, unless you were over the 20k cap? If housing benefit were paying my 7k a year rent and giving me £6396 to live on, that's £13,396 a year - much less than the 20k cap. What am I missing. Sorry, I don't understand how it works. I've never claimed out of work benefits. (Sorry to shock the Daily Mail readers again).

And I disagree with the result because its ridiculous that some people on benefits take money from working people who earn less.
Bollocks. Complete and utter bollocks. You have absolutely no idea but are resolutely ploughing forward with your non arguments and making yourself look really rather silly.

Lots of working people live in not very nice places. They're usually as clean as you want them to be. Wilkos sell cleaning spray for 70p,

Rent is fully paid for some but by no means all. Housing benefit is limited to the third decile of rents in any given area which means that 70% of rents everywhere are more than housing benefit pays.

Benefits bashing is one of the ugliest faces of our current society. Time for a sea change in attitudes I hope, especially now the Conservatives have realised not everyone is a fan of their austerity policies and young people are less likely to buy hate filled rags like the Daily Mail.

Some posters also show an incredible lack of understanding of the costs of childcare. There was a time when both my children were in nursery that I earned less than I paid out in childcare. And I'm a teacher! If I didn't have DH to rely on, I'd have been screwed.

Posted this up thread but wanted to point out again.

The judge said single people with children under 2 where being discriminated agaisnt. I fail to see how.

A single person where I live who doesn't work will get £14.3k in cash per year, if they have zero income and a child under 4.

Housing for a 2 bedroom terraced costs (fully furnished) about £550 a month.

That's not poverty.

The SAME person who then goes to work 16 hours a week on £7.50ph and pays £150 a week in childcare, so pays to guy £9 an hour (unlikely, average is about £5 here) will get in cash £26k a year.

Let's compare that to a single parent who works full time (35 hours) and earns £26k a year.

That parent needs 40 hours childcare. Minimum. The maximum amount you can claim in childcare is £175 per week, so as you can see, that doesn't cover the actual child care bill.
So if you earn as a single parent 26k, work full time, you will get yearly:

£8.7k in benefits (cash)
£21k take home

So £29k in total, 3k more than the person working half the hours who is supported by the government. With still some money to pay out for childcare on top.

And to be on 26k a year you either need to be on a graduate scheme or in middle management in most places, unless you have a skill. So then it becomes a fact that skilled worker v someone stacking shelves is not really better off.

Of course no one wants to see children and families starved, but a long term investment in supporting perfectly working people is in place, it's very generous. We always here about the few the model doesn't fit, but that's just propaganda, and isn't a norm.

The system is bonkers

The more I have looked into the figures the more actually I think we need the cap, it's really god damn unfair everywhere. But what people miss from the headlines too is that there is discretionary payments for paying rent as well. It is buried somewhere within the link..

I'm not sure that supporting a benefits cap is straightforward benefits bashing.

I believe everyone should have a decent standard of living. But work should always be more rewarding than benefits, otherwise working people get pissed off.

Obviously if someone is unable to work due to disability that is a different situation.

I don't think this thread is benefit bashing. I agree with the benefit system but I think there should be a limit. I don't think benefit claimants should be stigmatised they way they are. It's hard being a single mum - I've been one for a long time now. I wouldn't like to be out of work, and I've put up with an awful lot to make sure I'm not. I think some people do a lot to find work and some don't. I earn 13k, I should be earning more. 20k sounds like a lot to me.

I do think there needs to be some sort of cap. But an allowance for certain circumstances, say severely disabled.

Two of the women who bought this case to court are in refuge's, so it's more complex. Rent can be up to £300 a week for a room as refuges have 24 hour support staff and have a duty of care to keep women and children safe.

Exactly my sentiments tinkly people have very strong options about caps etc because the benefit system just categorically doesn't work. From every point of view.

Resentment, especially in the very common scenario I posted above, is just unavoidable.

It doesn't mean people don't care, of course theg do! I do personally (and give to foodbabks etc) and many other normal people are horrified at the thought that children are subject to poverty, there are tens of thousands of children who aren't even getting the basics a daily.

But does giving the parents more money solve that problem? Up until an unlimited amount?

No it doesn't, some of it will be solved. But there is s cultural and educational missing link that can't addressed by giving more people more money.

I have never believed in tax credits, what fucking condescending, convoluted system that is.

I dint get tax credits, but if I did my thoughts would be:

I work and pay tax, now I have to petition the government to evidence that I paid too much tax v my outgoings and I should have some paid back.. based on my last years earnings to boot. And god forgive I get an extra penny pay rise, that might wipe my claim out entirely!!!

Never mind increasing minimum wage (that most small to medium business can't affor Without increasing prices or going out of business) lets just stop taxing the poor..

Do you know, I've never even thought about rent in a refuge. I mean it's a refuge and presumably funded by charity or a grant. I didn't even realise rent was charged. And naively I suppose, I assumed women were only there a couple of weeks and then got rehoused pretty quickly in most areas.

But I don't think the refuge situation should throw the cap out of the window. The government should fund refuges better so that rent is reasonable.

Same posters on here bashing those on benefits also seen on threads supporting Tories and their policies, wish I could figure out the link

Seriously some of you need to take your head for a wobble, people are struggling and dieing because of the idealogical austerity measures, wake the fuck up and stop looking below you and fighting for the crumbs while those above you milk the system until its dry and their bank balances are greatly increased and those of you that are the crumb makers fuck right off, because they will come for you when the poor have been squeezed hard enough, we'll see how safe your ivory tower turned out to be then shall we

Mybrain. But the clue is "where you live". Everyone doesn't live there. Everyone should live there apparently, but no one can give any clear indication of how these women should escape the refuges they are in to move hundreds of miles away from their families and schools and take up these wondrous opportunities. They just can, apparently, by starving themselves to pay for a van and picking somewhere nice off Rightmove though they have no money for a deposit and no one wants to rent to a single mother on HB anyway. It's simples.

Refuges are run by charities

work should always be more rewarding than benefits

Yes, it should unless there are reasons where a person is unable to work. But the situation here is that work has to reward enough to offset the cost of childcare. Free and subsidised childcare could work if organised properly, without resorting to paying childcare workers even less than the pittance they already earn. Many European countries have excellent subsidised childcare programmes.

We always here about the few the model doesn't fit, but that's just propaganda, and isn't a norm.
Do you have evidence of said propaganda? The judge certainly didn't think that this was a propagandist agenda.

Tinkly I wouldn't feel bad about your misconceptions re refuges. This entire issue has been woefully misrepresented by the government and press alike so that most people think it's about families who have never worked a day in their lives living in knightsbridge mansions with a butler in every wing at taxpayers' expense when in fact it's about a very small group of people whose rents are high for some reason or another - because they're in refuges, or other supported accommodation or because they're homeless and the council can only find expensive temporary accommodation in discharging their statutory duty to house them.

And as for people saying the woman in this case should work: she and her infant child are victims of domestic violence living a precarious existence. Sure some women would find work helpful but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to allow her to rebuild her and her baby's life at her own pace. Is society really going to fall apart if she doesn't immediately get 16 hours a week in a shop?

Marcia, yes the clue is where you live, there is already at least a 3k difference in allowances.

There is so much propaganda both ways. When it comes to benefits.

I think the medium is that ordinary working families, or one parent families. Right now are under represented and supported.

That's the vast majority of the population.

And we are torn.

Hence the last general election result

Thisarming, totally agree. You summed that up beautifully.

Thisarming you have missed the point.

The ruling said that single people with children under 2 are being discriminated against with the benefit cap.

That's not true.

You are talking about people who make up a small portion of the population, the people who made up the discrimination are refugees of DV.

That's not all single parents.

mybrain, try looking at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for an insight into benefits, no propaganda, just clear figures. It'll dispel a fair few myths.

Dear god what is the world coming to when you can't live on £20,000 a year to sit on your ass and do bugger all.

Ha! I think a lot of people wish they'd sat on their ass and done bugger all! Single parents, disabled people, parents caring for disabled children or spouses. Yeah, definitely doing bugger all.

Or the fact that some people who receive a fair whack in top up benefits, even, work!