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

Single parents have childcare costs that couples with one parent at home do not have. The much vaunted free hours for children below three have failed to materialise and only would have covered term time anyway. And what is this about childcare not lasting forever? I mean yeah I suppose twelve years per child is not technically forever but it sure does feel like it and it's quite a hit from one wage.

Well they have been at lest unemployed for 2 weeks to 2 years. Or haven't worked and was getting smp/ma
2 weeks isn't long term, is it. Really, you're not making a great deal of sense here.

Dawndonna - quite. This woman is traumatised and trying to support her traumatised infant child. The experience that they have gone through makes them vulnerable to all sorts of problems in the future. They need proper and expert help and support now and for some considerable time. I think we can hold off expecting her to stack shelves in Poundland and put her child into childcare for a while.

I wish people would rtft before commenting, it at least the article in question.

The very vast majority of people are not effectected by the cap.

It's insulting to from the judge to say that lone parents are discriminated from the cap with children under 2. Are these people Instantly unemployable?

There is no discrimination here in the policy.

I really don't know how to explain it any simpler than, it's easier for two adults to meet the part time work requirement than it is one and that one parent has to use paid childcare where two don't...that's the discrimination, right there. There's an inequality in how it's set up, it's as plain as that.

Whether one parent would be better off working or not is irrelevant.

People have rtft before commenting.
They just disagree.

The very vast majority of people are not effectected by the cap.

Not true. Repeating it doesn't make it so.

The benefit system doesn't actually benefit anyone. It's unfair, the "rewards" are disproportionately applied v where you live and if you work. And often if you don't work you can get your wages supplemented above NMW.

Neither is this true. The whole point of the benefit cap, which has been reduced twice, is so that this doesn't happen.

But the truth is people won't be affected by the benefit cap unless they live in expensive areas or have loads of children.

Plus the linked article earlier shows that the Government have not made the savings they were predicting. Tbh I think it's been a huge mess.

As for UC words fail me. As a Carer with a disabled child I would be worse off under UC. I am fortunate that we won't need to claim it as my income has increased massively through work and my husband now lives with me.

These cuts are ideological and have nothing to do with making savings...indeed they haven't made savings, meanwhile actual human beings are being badly affected by some of them. Real people with real lives.

What about the criminal compensation scheme? If something is a victim of a crime, which is what dv is, then there is a system for compensation for victims. It's not always transparent or straightforward but maybe this would be a way of addressing the victim of dv point rather than the system as a whole.

Dishwasher, apart from the fact that the victim compensation scheme has been cut drastically, there are many caveats, one of which is not following through with prosecution, a situation very common for many reasons in these particular cases.

There is no discrimination here in the policy May I ask your qualifications and whether or not you've informed the judge of this, surely it is your duty to do so...

I really don't know how to explain it any simpler than, it's easier for two adults to meet the part time work requirement than it is one and that one parent has to use paid childcare where two don't...that's the discrimination, right there. There's an inequality in how it's set up, it's as plain as that.

It's 'discriminatory' if you accept that the government should make equal single and two parent households.

You can throw up as many exceptional circumstances as you like, it doesn't change the fact that most single parents are single for reasons other than DV.

"It's 'discriminatory' if you accept that the government should make equal single and two parent households."

In some things yes I do though.

Because what the cap affects is access to housing benefit, I'm not seeing any logical or fair reason that it should be harder to access housing benefit because you're a single parent on benefits as opposed to a couple on benefits.

Even with a large number of children, the benefit cap still isn't reached by actual cash in hand benefits, it's always housing benefit for private landlords that takes it over.

Not RTFT

"The flagship welfare policy meant that there is a cap on total benefits, at either £23,000 a year in London, or £20,000 for the rest of the UK. The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) had said that people were exempt from the cap if they work at least 16 hours per week – which the claimants said discriminated against lone parents with children under the age of two.

The benefit cap, which limits the total amount households can receive in benefits to £20,000 a year, or £23,000 in Greater London, was claimed to be an “incentive” to “support” unemployed people to move into work. In reality, it has hindered people who want to prepare for work, demotivating them because they are struggling financially to meet their basic needs."

kittysjones.wordpress.com/2017/06/22/judicial-review-rules-benefit-cap-unlawfully-discriminates-against-lone-parents/

Interesting study

"Earlier this year, I wrote an article about comparative research at an international level, which has undermined the government claim that the UK welfare state encourages “widespread cultures of dependency” and presents unemployed people with “perverse incentives”.

The study, which links welfare generosity and active labour market policies with increased employment commitment, was published in 2015. It has demonstrated that people are more likely to look for work if they live in a country where welfare provision is generous and relatively unconditional. Empirically, the research includes more recent data from a larger number of European countries than previous studies.

The research also compared employment motivation in specific sub-sections of communities across countries: ethnic minorities, people in poor health, non-employed people and women, and adds depth to previous studies. It has been concluded that comprehensive welfare provision is increasingly seen as a productive force in society (Bonoli, 2012), that stimulates employment commitment (Esser, 2005) and supports individual inclusion and participation in society and the labour market, particularly among disadvantaged groups.

The researchers found that the more a country paid to unemployed and disabled people, and invested in employment schemes, the more its population were likely to agree with the statement, whether employed or not. "

kittysjones.wordpress.com/2017/06/22/judicial-review-rules-benefit-cap-unlawfully-discriminates-against-lone-parents/

I have two children. I no longer pay for childcare, but when I had two in full-time childcare (working a 9-5 job, monday to friday with a 20-minute commute), my childcare bill was £1350 per month. That's with the fre 15 hours all children got back then.

Childcare support from benefits is UP TO 70%. You only get 70% if you're on NMW. Once you're on as little as £18,000 pre tax, that reduces to about 50%. £405 (30%) per month is a LOT of money to find out of a NMW income. £675 even more out of £1280 (monthly post tax take home from £16000 salary). Just adding housing on top of that will wipe out many finances.

The Children's Society report several years ago stated that children from single parent families often did better when the primary parent was able to work reduced hours or stay at home, because that extra time with the one constant, stable feature (i.e. parent with care) in the child's life at the point where they were readjusting to change following relationship breakdown/bereavement helped them to deal with it.Longer term this has positive effects on the child's behaviour and educational attainment.

When you take poverty out of the equation, children from single parent families do just as well as those from two-parent families.

If we are really serious about reducing benefit dependency, we need to be making sure that all schools offer an excellent education regardless of postcode or demographic. We need to be funding extra-curricular activities for kids from backgrounds which are normally priced out of such things. And for those families where the problem is a cycle of chaotic lifestyles/poor parents rather than bad luck and poverty, we need to be supporting them into achieving better standards of parenting or funding better quality of care for children who are removed.

I'd have more truck with a benefit cap if it was being counterbalanced by extra funding for schools and social services. But it's not. It's actually just a way of perpetuating inequality and penalising people for being poor. How is it ever fair to lock people in a room, throw away the key and then criticise them for not leaving it?

But it's 23k tax free. My dh works full time and I work 2 days. We have 2 kids. Our earnings are not much more than that after tax. How is that fair. Where is the incentive for these people to work??

With having other subsidies like not paying council tax and cheaper rent... they are probably on the same money if not more actually. In fact I'm having to pick up another day soon because we're not doing that well. It's called initiative and responsibility. I am responsible for my family, not the state.

The incentive is a better life?! Not being reliant on benefits and a government that could put you on stop at any time.

Very very few people are on it long term because they can't be arsed

Hear hear harshbuttrue1980. I don't live by my family. I miss their support especially since having children. But the housing is cheaper here and I got a job here. I find many people are insular and cannot fathom moving away from their area. Well poor diddums...that is life and if you want to improve your lot you just have to do it.

Have a medal

Is that the Most Appropriate User Name medal?

Could be!

Nice bullying there. How old are you ladies? Am I saying anything that isn't true?

And obviously I had a choice in my username so you making fun of it has no real consequence.