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

What a nice post jamie

Just put their kids in care
x 10000000

I think she meant day care, not SS care

If you're disabled, I.e. getting DLA or PIP, or support group ESA, the cap doesn't apply Seven. WRAG isn't a disability benefit. If you're getting WRAG ESA and you're disabled you'd need to claim PIP too.

Their benefits were sanctioned because they could not take a 16 hour a week job with a child under two.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the benefit cap or am I missing something?

I hope so
But have read worse on here.

Why don't the people in question put their children into care and go get a job. They only need to work 16 hours a week to get unlimited benefits. They are taking the piss. £20,000 a year is not poverty.
One person, with one child will rarely get that much in benefits. Go and do some research and stop baring your prejudices to the world, it's unsightly and distasteful.

Christ the benefit bashers are out in full force

Of course esa wrag is a disability benefit. You are to sick/disabled to work and therefore have no way out of the benefit cap.

I was born in the city I live in. I've lived here all my life. The fuck I would suddenly uproot everything and move halfway across the country to somewhere rents are cheaper.

This is my home town - not London but expensive - and I won't be displaced because we are poor and rents are too high.

Every time I see someone post about moving to a cheaper area it boils my piss. Perhaps rents wouldn't be so high in Bristol if so many people from London didn't move here because the can't afford to carry on living in London.

Before suggesting people should move somewhere 'cheaper' perhaps think about the people living in the 'cheaper' cities being forced out to make way for these people. Otherwise at this rate we'll be living in the sea.

Pip/dla are IN work benefits , both components of esa are awarded because a claimant is unable to work. Yet the benefit cap is supposed to incentivise work . How exactly would that work when the dwp have themselves declared you incapable of work .....

Toysaurus
It boils my piss too,
So people move from expensive area to
reasonable area
reasonable area people can't afford it anymore so go to cheap area
cheap area can't afford it anymore so move to shit area
shit area can't afford it so they go to.....

oh hang on where do they go?

Also, when all the poor are out of london, who will make your coffees, clean your homes, serve you in restaurants, fix your cars, care for the elderly and disabled.

By caring for elderly parents, i don't mean as a full time "carer" but getting the odd bit of shopping, taking them out. Keeping them company. Its a long old way to go before people qualify for carers and actually I'm not sure we should always pay people to do that sort of stuff.

Barbaraofsevelle most people on housing benefit are working. And your single parent nurse up thread would be getting tax credits - around ten grand a year if she was paying out even minimal childcare.

Is London going to end up having to bus min wage workers in? Or maybe have subsidised "staff housing " ? How else will the place function of all the poor have to move out of there?!

I have no problem in principle with benefits to support people who need them.

I do have a problem with the "they don't get cash, it's totally different" argument, as it's basically bullshit. The cost to the taxpayer is the same whether it's paid to the tenant or the landlord and the benefit to the recipient is also the same. Why the eagerness to claim that it isn't?

Actually just done a few more sums and the single parent nurse would be getting £8k a year housing benefit a year if she lived in London (not central - that would be even more).

DLA and PIP can be claimed whether you are in OR out of work.

Olennaswimple the cost is the same but as a matter of policy I think it's relevant where the money goes. Close to £10 billion a year goes on housing benefit to private landlords, the bulk of it to pay the rent of our hypothetical nurse single parent ie people in work.

"One person, with one child will rarely get that much in benefits. Go and do some research and stop baring your prejudices to the world, it's unsightly and distasteful."

Then the cap wont affect them, will it? And the cap is what is being discussed?

Didn't Cameron famously claim DLA? Anyway the biggest benefit bill is pensions and the second biggest is in work benefits. Unemployment benefits account for a very small amount of benefit spending and a tiny amount indeed of overall treasury spend. Tax Credits cost us £26 billion. £26 billion to subsidise employers who don't pay a living wage!

ThisArming I hear you - successive governments have failed to tackle the housing shortage and it's despicable that so many employers pay so little that the government subsidises their wages.

But there are posters upthread (and on many previous threads) who are not talking about the policy implications of the system or knock on effects. They are simply claiming that because the money is paid direct it's somehow different.

I think the unemployment benefits is the bit ive been missing.

Wages are now so inadequate to cover rent that working people still need benefits to top them up, the current minimum wage is only acceptable because its being topped up by a not-insignificant degree. And ALL those benefit top-ups are being paid from taxes straight into the hands of landlords!

Theres something very wrong with that setup, where businesses dont pay enough and landlords are being topped up by public money, purely for everyone to live.

Gah, not unemployment benefits sorry, in-work topup benefits!

Ok I get that. But hitting the people who need the money is going after the wrong target. We shouldn't be talking about how much people get at all, which is what the government wants us to do. We should be looking at where that money is going and addressing the fact that we have become a low wage economy with a high cost of living. The concept of the cap is a red herring. How it's come about that these vast amounts of money are being spent is the real issue.

As ever, visit -
www.entitledto.co.uk/
Plug some figures in, modify them to suit different circumstances, find the truth.

People have always moved for financial reasons though. In the late eighties my entire circle of friends from uni moved to London and the south east for jobs. And when we wanted to start families we all moved back out again.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that people have got a right to live subsidised somewhere desirable just because they were born there. Those of us born in shitty depressed post industrial backwaters deserve the same crack of the whip as people born in more prosperous places.