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

I think it's fair to say the thread has moved away a fair bit from today's ruling.

Not necessarily so Dawn.

They would need to be the same level of job,with the same salary pdq. Debt can build up pdq when you're paying higher rent without any assistance. Love the way re the minute you're not on benefits life is easy as pie and rosey to boot.

You don't just click your fingers and get a similar job just because you are above minimum wage.

We are in an area with few jobs. If my dh lost his job we'd have to move. I'm on a minimum wage and there are way more opportunities than those at my dh's level of salary.

Yes Dixie a single parent on a minimum wage. Not all are,plenty are high wage earners and not in receipt of benefits.

Presumably you have the funds to move then?

We'd have to find them Marcia like everybody else without any assistance.

The magic tree presumably

Up their ass

Money tree that should say. I've moved for work, including abroad. It costs lots of money. House hunting trips, deposits, removal costs etc. So you've escaped domestic violence with not much more than you stand up in, with a BABY, and your benefits have been capped. Explain to me how "moving somewhere cheaper" works in this case?

You just do because there is no magic tree or assistance.

But come come let us know about this perfect land where only the richest and poorest get to live where they want.

Or the land which supports everybody to live where they want as moving is too awful to contemplate. If it's that shit for some it's shit for everybody.

Of course folk on here always say LTB and when you do and have to ask for help you're a low down no good benefit scrounger.

I really don't get some of the justification for this ruling, this is the part I am most ??? about:

"The claimants, two of whom have previously been made homeless as a result of domestic violence, had said the fact they had children under the age of two meant they were unable to work the minimum 16 hours per week that is needed in order to avoid the cap on their benefits. As a result, their welfare payments were cut."

Why does having children under the age of 2 and being single mean you can't work?

I know there isn't lots of part time jobs etc out there, but I disagree wholeheartedly that they simply can not work because they are single and have children. You could say they are at a disadvantage, but where does that stop?

A single person with 1 child between the ages of 2 & 4 in my area up north would get a cash entitlement every year of approx £14.3k, average rents for a 2 bedroom house are £550. That's plenty of money. Council tax relief would be £1.1k on top on a band D property.

If a single person worked 16 hours for £7.50ph and had to pay £150 a week in childcare (Which is probably a fair estimate as I would imagine you would be entitled to 15 hours free) then you would, get 26k a year take home, with £900 council tax relief..

I used the entitled to calculator for the above, I know it's not completely accurate, however I have a single mum really close friend who recently went back to work part time with 2 children under 4, and this seems to be in line with what she gets (which I don't bregruge her for receiving at all.)

It's such a peculiar system, and I think everyone agrees it needs a good shake up!! I don't see questioning some of this logic as being benefit bashing, I have probably missed something in this ruling, other than the London/south rent complication I am struggling to see what though...

Fizbo, there IS a magic money tree. It's in the forests of tax avoidance. Theresa May's hubby has a branch or several there.
As do Amazon, Starbucks etc.

Fact is the poorest have got poorer and the disabled have been utterly shafted. Society has finally woken up and noticed which is why the Conservatives got the kicking they did at the election. They would do well to learn from it.

Ideological cuts are all very well until they start impacting upon actual human beings.

Finally

Well, that's where they seem to find most things...

mybrain people have all kinds of pressures in their lives you may know nothing about.
Being a single parent doesn't stop you working but being a single parent with no support, or other pressures might do.

That's the problem with these cuts and caps, they don't take account of anything beyond the black and white.

Hardly a kicking. You do know who won and that they got their highest vote share since 1983 even after years of austerity and Brexit.

Yes they're in such a great position just now. Really blossoming..not.

But if you have other issues preventing you from working, then there are other types of assistance you can claim.

I know that disability benefits aren't as good as they should be, but it's another option.

I just really struggle to understand.

I have only once needed assistance, when I couldn't work due to disability, I was single and childless and could love wth my parents, and know first hand what it was like negotiating the system. I couldn't claim enough to support my self, (this was about 10 years ago) because I wasn't "ill" enough apparently....

I still disagree that being a single parent and having children under two means you can't work (if work is available of course!) unless there was a medical reason. (Including mental health and learning difficulties)

But this isn't what the ruling says.

Why do you need flexible hours? Surely a fixed shift rotation for 16 hours a week would be required, so childcare could be arranged?

Strong and stable.

... and down 26 points in the polls from eight weeks ago.