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

If someone can't work because they are a single parent to a young child, and their housing benefit is high enough to drive them over the benefits cap, then I think the most desirable outcome is for them to live somewhere cheaper. (I assume that in the vast majority of the country housing costs are not high enough to cause this problem.)

There could be help with moving costs, I suppose.

People who are sick of others getting benefits need to go and jack in their jobs, go on benefits and see what the reality a like. People are so worried others are getting something they're not the fail to understand what it's like to live under the conditionality applied to benefits under the regime of the DWP!

Firesuit
I definitely would be in favour of help with moving costs to keep people below the cap, but I still think the cap should be removed and that this "help" should actually be helped (it's not help if someone forces you to leave your home and support network because you're down on your luck)

backaftera2yearbreak Definitely. I think so many people say oh I'd be so much better off on benefits then carry on working. It's funny really because if there ever was a scenario where we'd all be better off on benefits the job centre would have queues coming out the doors and spanning a good 10 miles.

I can't believe the ignorance on this thread already and it's only page 2.
If you are going to post about a subject, why not have some knowledge about it first, it doesn't take too much intelligence.

Rents are high and childcare isn't cheap.
By benefit they don't mean cash, it can mean services, reduction in some bills. It isn't cash in hand to do with as you please.

Yes, people who earn more have to pay bills as well, but they have the money to begin with, whereas some people don't.
Everyone deserves a roof over their head whatever their income or background.

Wages aren't sufficient for many and they need the benefits on top of a low income.
If these were higher and in line with the cost of living there would be no need for in work benefits, too.

Wages aren't sufficient for many, therefore wages need to rise, considerably. There shouldn't be a need for in work benefits.

I have nothing against anyone being on benefits, I'm just confused how they can say "if your money is coming from source A then 23k is too low, but if your money is coming from source B then 18k taxable is plenty".

How can we say "the people being capped should just starve then, yeah?" when we are also saying "people are working full-time for less than that and we think thats fine for them to live on."

Goodness sake. They are not actually getting that amount in cash!!! (Bangs head on table) and the fact remains it was a ruling because it was discriminatory against single parents!

Everyone deserves a roof over their head whatever their income or background.

Should anyone be entitled to live where rents are say £2000 a month, if the same size property can be rented for £500 a month elsewhere in the country?

(I should possibly have said £1200 rather than £2000, as that is what housing benefit will pay for a two-bedroom flat around here. £2000 is what it would actually cost to get one.)

Choices of property for those on benefits are more limited as is council and housing association stock. Just look on Rightmove at the amount of properties that state either no housing benefit claimants or adds extra stipulations to their applications, such as guarantors (which have to be home owners). So a person earning a similar amount to someone on benefits will have more choices available to them. Some very affordable council properties even stipulate they give priority to those working full time.

Why is it discriminatory against single parents?

You do pay tax if you earn £18k. The amount you can earn and not pay any tax as an unmarried single person is £11,500.

Wages will not rise because employers are able to pay low wages to part time workers topped up by in work benefits.
Wages will never rise, low pay is subsidised by tax credits.
Tax credits have been an unmitigated disaster for wages in this country.
Millions of people will face poverty once the qualifying children leave education. It is a tragedy

People are misunderstanding the cap entirely! The government are not handing the claimants 23k per year salary- this the the total amount they receive including housing benefit, child benefit, and any other entitlements. 20k of it could be going straight to paying their rent (if they live in London) through housing benefit, leaving them barely anything for living and all other bills. I don't understand why this isn't understood!

I earn 13k and I pay 1k a year in tax and national insurance.

Nice to see the Tories and Mail readers on here know better than an actual High court judge.

I think it is is understood and most people think that living in London is a choice, a very expensive choice.

Consider 2 families renting in Central London. Both are single parents of 2 children. One receives benefits at the benefit cap of £23k and the other earns £35k as a nurse and probably doesn't receive anything else except child benefit.

After tax/NI, travel to work, rent and childcare, the nurse is likely to have less disposable income than the unemployed family but people are saying the family on benefits are going to starve, but would consider someone on £35k who probably has less disposable income as being on a decent salary .

I've never voted for the Tories or read the Daily Mail, I'm a single parent on a low income. But I do support the benefit cap because I think we should all be paid better, with less reliance on benefits.

There isn't a bottomless pit of free money to give to everyone.

then I think the most desirable outcome is for them to live somewhere cheaper

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.

I think it is is understood and most people think that living in London is a choice, a very expensive choice.

Another day, same old nonsense by people who really have no comprehension as to how the system works. One of the women involved was in a refuge, wonder how much choice she had in where she was placed.

The cap has affected supported housing the most. This is basically refugees for people fleeing domestic violence, or supportive accommodation for very young people leaving abusive homes, or people coming off drink and drugs. Giving help to these people is not only morally right, it makes good financial sense.

Well the law disagrees with you here namechanger. Since we arent "paid better." Its inhumane and punitive.

Ahh yes the 'choice' to live in London.
Social cleansing at its best.
The choice to be near support, kids in schools they are happy
To be near parents that need care or you need help from.
To be near jobs.

Your partner fucks off and leaves you penniless, your partner dies. You or your child gets a chronic illness.

You'll have to leave your home as it's a choice

Nearly everyone thinks that the vulnerable should be supported. The question is how much.

Do we given them everything they ask for, much more than the self-sufficient earn, and forever. Or do we help them look after themselves by paying everyone a good wage. Most people would prefer to earn a good wage and not live with the stigma.

Well as i said the judge disagrees with you. I will go by what they said

You cant punish people into earning more especially if there arent the jobs out there