Cap on benefits to 26k- am I missing something?

[buggyRunner]

As far as I can gather it's the normal benefits ie housing/ cb and wtc. This seems like a large sum. Is it accross the board or does it include disability related benefits? Are the figures misleading?

There are a lot of people on this thread talking about how they're coming at this from the perspective of the taxpayers who are having to fund everything, and so they support a cap. I can understand this. However, it's probably going to end up costing more money.

With this in mind, as a taxpayer, I can't support the reforms no matter how galling some people find it that families get housing benefit for Central London when they can't afford to live there. I'm sorry, but times are very hard at the moment. At a time when cuts need to be made, this is an extremely expensive point of principle.

So for those of who you do support the reforms, would you still support them even if you knew it would cost us more? Would you pay more tax in order to fund all the B and B accommodation? I fucking wouldn't.

why cannot people move outside central london, that is what everone else has to do.

the £26k does seem ok at face value ....BUT if you read huntycat's post above, it says that onone gets that figure because of how HB is calculated.

so on a home in the south east you could be looking at app. £23K.

In 1998 dh and I were in a complete fix housingwise. Our tenancy through the university where I was studying was coming to an end, dh had a job but I was a newly graduated mother of a four month old. We could not afford market rent in our city. Bizarrly we could afford a mortgage but couldn't find a house to buy. Then a friend who was relocating offered us her house at a low rent whilst it was on the market. We took care of her house, helped her sell it (her estate agent was shit) and whilst this was going on we found a house of our own to buy. The sole thing that gave us choices in this situation was that dh had a job and starting salary for that job was enough to pay for housing and living for a family. Starting salary for that kind of job has gone up by perhaps 3 or 4 grand in the last 14 years. It wouldn't give anybody much choice now. I can sit here thinking 'wow 26 grand, that's twice what we had' or I can get my head out of my backside and think about what everything costs now. It's wrong of course that people should be disincentivised from working by an overly generous benefits system - but is that what we honestly have? Really?
The one thing I do have an issue with is the not moving thing. Sorry but that definately comes under the heading of needs must. Family support is an optional extra not a necessity.

Kelly2000 I'm not saying they can't. I'm just saying it's going to be rather expensive moving them all, and I don't want to pay extra for it just because some people think it should happen on principle. So I want to know if other poeple would.

Hear hear pollypb. Excellent post.
A lot of people are approaching this from the point of view that people who don't get benefits dont have to deal with hardship. That's such a narrow perspective. I have lived a minimum of 100 miles from my home town since age 18. I couldnt afford to buy or rent there (still can't and I'm 46). I have spent a fortune in childcare over the years. I have had to forego things like dental treatment, prescriptions, and I have certainly never been able to afford things like designer clothes or tobacco. I'm not complaining about these things- its called LIFE . You cut your cloth according to your means. I have worked all my adult life apart from maternity leaves (1 x 3 months and 1 x 6 months off work). It just astounds me that people on benefits could expect to not have to put up with all the same hardships and frustrations that the average working woman/man has to.

Hear hear pollypb. Excellent post.
A lot of people are approaching this from the point of view that people who don't get benefits dont have to deal with hardship. That's such a narrow perspective. I have lived a minimum of 100 miles from my home town since age 18. I couldnt afford to buy or rent there (still can't and I'm 46). I have spent a fortune in childcare over the years. I have had to forego things like dental treatment, prescriptions, and I have certainly never been able to afford things like designer clothes or tobacco. I'm not complaining about these things- its called LIFE . You cut your cloth according to your means. I have worked all my adult life apart from maternity leaves (1 x 3 months and 1 x 6 months off work). It just astounds me that people on benefits could expect to not have to put up with all the same hardships and frustrations that the average working woman/man has to.

So, when all these benefits are capped, and the country's STILL up shit creek, and it will be, who will get the blame?

Benefits capping won't solve all the shit this country is in but it's a move in the right direction. Too many people are trapped in a culture of dependency and don't have the incentive to become self sufficient. If you 'earn' more in benefits than youd earn in a job, what incentive is there?

Also, sometimes the things that are forced on u

OOps ... Forced on you by circumstance, turn out to be fine.
I had to move away from my home town. I didn't die! Yeap, it meant building a new life and new networks, and spending a fortune in childcare because I didn't have grandma down the road to dump my kids on- but so what? It's life isn't it.

I agree with Flangelina.

The issue that no one seems to be addressing is that these cuts will cost the country more in the long run.

All these carers who will no longer be able to feed and house their sick relatives - what will happen to their children or elderly relatives?

They will be taken into care, at tremendous personal and financial cost - the burden of the financial cost will be on the taxpayer.

If no-one is GETTING 26k, then a cap will make no difference.

The difficulties HuntyCat is talking about are related to 2 different things - how you define who receives DLA, and how the Universal Credit is calculated.

That is not part of the benefits cap issue.

I think HuntyCat is saying the cap will practically be lower than £26K. i guestimate nearer £23k.

I had a few months on income support recently because I was trying to set up my own business. I'm not entitled to HB and I have one child, single parent. I got just over £120/week (50/50 IS/CTC). Thankfully I have a huge overdraft facility because that just about covers my mortgage and fuel costs. I don't see how anyone is going on fancy holidays and buying designer clothes on that kind of money, I really don't.

Had I been employed in a FT NMW job, I would have been earning £274 a week (income minus income tax plus CTC).

Can someone explain to me how being on benefits is being better off because I really don't understand it. Do I need to have loads more kids? Because surely that's going to cost me more to house, feed and clothe them?

No, that isn't it either, because if I had three children, I'd be entitled to £8220 in child tax credits. I'd get that if I were working in a NMW job full time or if I were claiming income support.

I remain truly mystified by this life of riley that some people on benefits supposedly have.

DPs relatives have other sources of money:

Told to me directly by claimant:

1. undeclared insurance claim (£10K)
2. money held by relatives (£3K)
3. Inheritance (£20K)

Told to me directly by claimants DB:

1. 1/2 of rental inherited roperty (app. £165K) and rental income paid to a third party (app £300 pm)

Exactly soverylucky.

I think a lot of people are saying that soverylucky. I agree that life on a low wage is tough too but a lot of the crap about the UC is about stopping people from being 'better off on benefits' when the truth of the matter is that the only people who are 'better off on benefits' are people like Hunty.

the younger one owns a house worth app. £180,000 with no mortage partly due to taking out mortgage protection during his 2 years work (his total working life and he is now in his late thirties) at a surprising convenient time. almost like he planned it......

(oh & DP & i have plenty of money so i am certainly not jealous of the idiot) the current system has ruined his life.

But that's claiming fraudulently Tilly. I don't think that's acceptable - it's stealing. That's not what I'm talking about

i completely agree but it seems v easy to do if you put your mind to it.

two people have got away with it for years. the older one has recently been reported by his own BD (so knows the accounts for the rental property as he owns the other half).

but this is why the older one can afford to fly to luthuiana for a hoilday every few months & the younger own recently spent £1k on a push bike!

Well they will probably get caught eventually. There is a woman near me who has just gone to prison for claiming HB for places that she rented from her LL who actually turned out to be the father of her children.

Breaking news:

Lords defeat for Benefits Cap

Thought this was a fair summary

But that Telegraph article states: "the cap doesn't apply to those on disability benefits who can't work", Portofino.

Which conflicts with the BBC article list of specific benefits: Cap "Applies to combined income from the main out-of-work benefits - Jobseeker's Allowance, Income Support, and Employment Support Allowance - and other benefits such as Housing Benefit, Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit, Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit"

Given the general lack of knowledge about disability benefits, I'd guess the Telegraph have just misunderstood.