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?

I have explained housing benefit cuts and how they will plunge people into poverty on the frothers blog toomanycuts.blogspot.com/

Look fot the blog posts titled The hidden housing crisis an impending disaster and Under Six and homeless.

IMO banging on about £26k and how on earth can they not live on that is misleading.When I was in temporary accommodation it cost £400pw.That was sharing ONE room with a 2 year old boy and a 5 year old girl.We had no cooking facilities so had to eat out for lunch and dinner, we had no laundry facilities so we had to use an expensive launderette. We were a long way from her school so I had to pay out for transport. If I was capped at £500pw I would have to have done all that on £100pw. That's poverty, real absolute POVERTY.

Also they are focussing on this cap but HB is now ALSO being calculated in a DIFFERENT way. Which means peopple who are gtting WAY BELOW £26k in total are facing rent shortfalls. And this is up and down the country. I have explained this in more detail on the blog posts.

The government is being very misleading. The way benefits are calculated is very complex and they are misleading people with simplistic soundbites.

Also I think IDS was being very misleading when he said people on working tax credits would be exempt.This implies working people would be unnaffected. But the cut off for WTC is a very low income.I think it is possible to be above the WTC threshold and still need HB in some cases. I'm not sure of that though, I am going to look into it.

As far as DLA is concerned they are introducing a new benefeit called PIP with the overall intention of saving 20% on the current budget. This means some people will lose DLA and all the HB they need to stay near their support networks. EVIL

I am amazed that this has gone on for as long as it has. £35,000 is a hard salary to obtain so to give it to someone in handouts is absurd. So what if people have to move to live somewhere they can afford. In the real world where people work, they often have to move. DB & I have both moved away from where we grew up as we had to in order to find jobs.

How many people coming on this thread will actually read the links that are being posted?

INFORM YOURSELVES.

If you still think that people in the situation that OM was in should have her benefit capped, then knock yourself out.

And hope to hell that you are never in the same situation.

An unexpected redundancy, illness - any you could be.

"When I was in temporary accommodation it cost £400pw"

Where was this?

an ammendment has been tabled to exclude people in temporary housing:

www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/peer-tables-amendment-for-benefit-cap-exemption/6520053.article

here is OM's story

@Hullygully
"I'm sorry, I am too angry to be polite any more.

You are buying their shit wholesale. How they laugh in their gilded throne rooms."

I wasn't aware that the Queen made these welfare reforms, but anyway I don't care who's laughing or where they're laughing, working families who couldn't dream of living in hugely expensive areas and families on £35,000 a year (equivalent to 26k after tax) seeing their neighbours lie about not working whilst getting more in benefits than they earn, are not laughing.

it has been tabled, no guarantee they won't ignore it like some of the others last week.

dalaran
Can you look past those loungabouts who are not willing to work and see that there are others affected.

Yes, this will hit those scroungers, but many more will be hurt too.

Normal people who cannot afford to move further from their work or their (free) childcare.

The cost of housing, childcare and transport is the key to this.

If they move out of expensive areas into the back of beyond, it costs a fortune to get to work. Their mum doesn't like aroudn the corner so they have to pay extra childcare.

Many will no longer be able to work, even in badly paid jobs.

That story is quite sad and I'm sorry they had to go through that, but the council supported her, gave her somewhere new to live, and I really don't see why people would expect any more than that. She was not allowed to live on the streets, she was given a roof and money for food.

The saddest thing about that was that she had to stay out of her room all day, which must have been very hard for her but she managed.

I think she is asking too much to want to be near family and not have to change her daughters school. Plenty of people move and their children change schools, plenty of people don't have family near by. Having those things are not rights. If she was concerned about her mental health having an affect on her children, she should have thought about that before having children, or at least before having the second. She can't expect to say 'I've had two children and it will be better for them if someone else pays for me to stay near my family because it will make me more stable'. Sorry, but living where you want and near to who you want is a privelidge that has to be earned, not handed out.

"When I was in temporary accommodation it cost £400pw"

Where was this?

Plymouth. So shipping them all out to decaying seaside towns with no jobs will be expensive.

A cap on benefits at £26k is very sensible assuming some exceptions are made for those with disabilities which might be very expensive to care for. Caps on housing benefit are even more vital. Transfering money from taxpayers to line the pockets of BTL landlords is just an outrage. High housing costs are the UK's number one problem. Reducing tax credits so we don't subsidise corporations' low wages also makes sense. Giving 30%+ of the benefit budget to those on higher than average household earnings is a massive misuse of government money.

The problem isn't that the government's ideas are wrong. The problem is that a large section of the population over the past 15 years has now been turned into a client state where they can't support themselves without government assistance. Never mind wasting billions on administering systems where we tax people only to give it back as benefits.

Of course trying to reverse that process is now going to hurt a lot of people. Plus the implementation will probably be a botch job as always. Nonetheless it has to be done.

"I think she is asking too much to want to be near family and not have to change her daughters school. Plenty of people move and their children change schools, plenty of people don't have family near by. Having those things are not rights. If she was concerned about her mental health having an affect on her children, she should have thought about that before having children, or at least before having the second. She can't expect to say 'I've had two children and it will be better for them if someone else pays for me to stay near my family because it will make me more stable'. Sorry, but living where you want and near to who you want is a privelidge that has to be earned, not handed out."

Thanks.

Jesus wept.

i support having a benefits system & want social mobility

but i have two relatives (well DP does) who are lazy scrougers (if your own brother reports you for fraud...) & their lives have been ruined by a system without proper checks.

i dont want to see lives wasted though proverty or unwarrented handouts. it is not as simple as forget about the 'scrougers' - they are lives wasted too.

Kitchenroll
The writer of that blog post is on the thread, and I can only hope you did not realise that.

So are those who have at some time in their past had a MH issue not allowed to have children in case they ever through no fault of their own become homeless?

And yes, of course people can move to cheaper accommodation, but who covers these costs? They are barely surviving as it is, they are not going to be able to just hire a van and move their belongings.

If they can even find cheaper accommodation.

We could move all the working poor to Scotland, I guess.

The government has just published its impact assessment into the housing benefit cap. The main points seem to be:

? An upwards revision of the numbers of households affected by the cap. Most analysts up to now have worked on the assumption that 50,000 households will be affected by the cap. But the impact assessment states:

The modelling suggests that, in the absence of any behavioural response to the policy, around 67,000 households will have their benefits reduced by the policy in 2013/14 (this is roughly one per cent of the out-of-work benefit caseload) and 75,000 in 2014/15.

It adds:

Within these households, and in 2013/14, the number of adults affected is 90,000 and the number of children 220,000.

? The Department for Work and Pensions assumes that the policy will save up to £515m over the four years from 2013 (on best estimates)

So who will be affected? The impact assessment states:

a. Larger than average, in the most part with three or more children, and thereby receiving larger than average Child Tax Credit payments and Child Benefit payments;
or
b. situated in high-rent areas, and thereby receiving large Housing Benefit payments; or
c. both of these factors combined.

In geographical terms the vast majority of households affected are in greater London (54%), followed by the south east (9%), and the north west (6%). It lists those local authorities where over 1,000 people will be affected by the cap. They are:

Barnet, Birmingham, Brent, Camden, City of Westminster, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Haringey, Harrow, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth

Scotland and Wales will account for 3,000 and 2,000 families respectively, the bulk of them in the cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Cardiff.

How much will these 67,000 households lose? The impact assessment estimates that:

? 45% will lose up to £50 a week (in 2013-14)
? 26% will lose between £50 and £100
? 12% will lose between £100 and £150 a week
? 17% will lose more than £150 a week

So, that's more families affected than expected, the bulk of them in London and the south east where housing benefit payments are highest. Larger families - meaning families with three or more children - will be disporportionately affected.

I thought the writer might be on here, I wasn't sure. You posted the blog on her Mme lindor, you cant expect people not to respond to it with their opinions. But I stand by what I said. It's not being unkind, and I'm not saying that people who have had MHZ issues shouldn't have children.

I'm saying that people have to take some responsibility for the choices they make. The safety net was there, it worked for OM because it stopped her and her children freezing and starving on the streets. That's what it's there for. It is not there to let people chose where they live and who they live near. Those choices go far beyond what should be provided as a safety net.

Kitchenroll
What about those who have children and THEN suffer from MH issues?

Or whose MH issues are caused or worsened by the worry about homelessness.

Or whose MH issues are controlled by the fact that they have a support network around them.

In any case, the big losers are:

• the working poor who are in expensive houses in London area - that is luxury, that is just plain extortionate rents.

• families with 3 or more children who may well have been able to afford them when they conceived their children.

So 67k households affected? Any how many households are there in UK?

There are 22 million in England so probably 26mm or so in UK as a whole. So we are saying that 0.26% of households are to be impacted or just 1 in 400.

Then they have a safety net. MH issues occur to people who don't have family too, what is the government supposed to do for those people? Provide them with a surrogate family?

Maybe if the family support is that important the family should get together and do something to help instead of relying on the state.

Those who had three children and then lost their jobs also have a safety net.

They dont get thrown out onto the streets, FFS I'm not saying they should get nothing. I'm just saying that a safety net should only provide so much, and choosing where you want to live is a privelidge that many working people don't have. Even working people with disabilities or MH issues don't often have that luxury, so why should someone who doesn't work get it?

- families with 3 or more children who may well have been able to afford them when they conceived their children.

but it was an illusion that most normal families could afford 3 or more children through good times and bad. we spent more money than we had during good times (at national or often personal level).

NB: I am critisizing the politicians, not large families is it was in the politicians interest for us to think good times go on forever.... and noone elses...

what is wrong with having to live in an area you can afford? I know when I am looking for a place to live I do not find something I like then tell the council to pay for it, I have to find somewhere within my means. If people on benefits can get more thna the average wage and really high rents paid for by the councils, then how the hell is someone earnign the average wage of £26K compete when it comes ot housing? All it means is that those thta work get pushed to the out edges of cities, and this can have a knock on effect for services. For instance London has one of the highest shortages of midwives, and I suspect that might be because a lot fo midwives cannot afford to live close enough to the hospitals inc entral London as they cannot compete with millionaires, and local councils housng those on benefits at whatever price a landlord sets.

ITA with fluffyhands. What's shocking is that people debate whether £26k is enough benefits, but we think it's absolutely fine as a wage for working people.

Also, I don't understand why people can't be moved away from their families or schools. Most of us do that when we get our first job and look for something affordable. These are people with no jobs, so childcare/commuting isn't a reason for them to stay where they are. Moving schools isn't great, but it's hardly the biggest drama that can happen in a child's life.

The government made savings in a lot more sensitive and potentially harmful areas than here.

What about the knock-on costs of these measures?

As Hully points out above, it's more expensive to have to deal with homeless families than it would be just to let them stay in their houses.

Not to mention the social costs of disruption to social and family networks; I'd lay money on it leading to an increase in crime, decrease in children's attainment at school... that sort of thing.

I understand it sounds appealing, but the government should really be thinking stuff like this through and not just knee-jerk Daily-Mail reacting. We can't actually afford to make expensive cock-ups like this at the minute.

Universal Credit spelt out_

A Lone Parent, with four children aged 13 years old, 9 years old, 8 years old and 11 months old who is unemployed because she has epilepsy (which she doesn?t receive disability benefits for any longer), and also because she is caring for two Special Needs Children (both have Autism, the 13 year old also has two leaky heart valves that will require open-heart surgery in the near future, mild epilepsy, Hypermobility Syndrome, Learning Difficulties AND is partially deaf, the 8yo has Hypermobility Syndrome, Ehlers-Danloss Syndrome, Hypotonia, and brittle asthma that is often life-threatening). The Lone Parent has ALSO been turned down for disability benefits for BOTH of her Special Needs Children. She claims Income Support on the basis of being a Lone Parent with a child aged under 5yo.

If we assume this Lone Parent is living in the South East, and is paying rent on a 3-bed Housing association house of £522.73, which will rise to 80% of the local rent for Private rented houses after the change-over to Universal Credit. In this area of the South-East, the average rent on a 3-bed Private rented house is £900. This means that this Lone Parent?s rent will rise to £720.00pcm. Although this Lone Parent is a current resident, who the Government are claiming will be unaffected by the rise in Social housing rents, because her Tenancy agreement is an ?assured shorthold tenancy agreement?, rather than the (currently) typical ?assured tenancy agreement?, she WILL be affected, as her housing association can raise her rent with just 8 weeks of notice. Also, the maximum Local Housing Allowance paid in this Lone parent?s council area for this size of property will be changed to just £480.00pcm.

This Lone Parent?s council tax bill is £109.37 in her Band ?C? property. She receives £288.33pcm maintenance for her 4 children.

Under the current Tax Credits/Benefits system, the Lone parent would get:

Child Tax Credits - £897.00pcm
Child Benefit - £262.17pcm
Housing Benefit - £522.73pcm
Income Support - £292.50pcm
Maintenance - £288.33pcm
Council Tax benefit - £109.37pcm

This comes to a total of £2,372.10pcm. However, once you take away the cost of her Council Tax (as that goes direct to the Local Authority, so isn?t ?income?, that leaves just £2,262.73pcm. When you take away the cost of her rent (which isn?t direct ?income?, as it goes direct to her Landlord currently), That leaves just £1,849.37pcm.

Under the new Universal Credit system, the Lone parent would get:

Child Benefit - £262.17pcm
UC personal allowance - £292.50pcm
UC 4 dependent children - £851.67pcm
UC Housing - £480.00pcm

If there are housing costs included in the UC, the maximum amount of UC that can be paid to the claimant will be reduced by 1.5 times whatever those housing costs are.

Now it gets complicated...1.5 times the housing is £720.00pcm

The maximum amount of Universal Credit that can be claimed by ANY family, other than those in receipt of Disability Benefits is £26,000PA, or £2,166.67pcm. You must note that this Lone Parent has been turned down for Disability Living Allowance and Employment Support Allowance for herself since the Coalition Government have changed the criteria for qualifying on the basis of epilepsy, and also that this Lone Parent does not receive any disability benefits for the two children with Special Needs. All of which mean that she has no protection from the cap on Universal Credit Payments.

Maximum Universal Credit that could be payable to this Lone Parent is £1,894.17pcm. Less 1.5 times the amount of help with housing costs that this Lone Parent has claimed for leaves £1,174.17pcm. So the most Universal Credit this Lone Parent can receive is £1,174.17pcm.

THEN you need to deduct the Child Benefit that this Lone Parent receives for her children from that amount. This leaves just £912.00pcm Universal Credit that this Lone Parent will be paid per calendar month.

Universal Credit paid to this claimant is £912.00pcm, made up of an allowance for herself, and an allowance for her 4 dependent children. She will also get £480.00pcm as the housing costs element of her Universal Credit. She will get her £262.17pcm Child Benefit, and her £288.33pcm maintenance. This is a total of £1,942.50pcm. BUT out of that, she will have to pay £720.00pcm rent. This leaves her with just £1,222.50.

SO, under the current Tax Credits/Benefits system, this family receives £1,849.37pcm after housing costs. Under the new Universal Credit, this family will receive £1,222.50 after housing costs. This is a drop of £626.87pcm, or £144.66 A WEEK.

There?s not many of us in this country who could survive if we lost £144.66 a week of our current income, and this is one of the poorest people in society, who is a carer AND has a fairly severe disability, and is therefore ALREADY struggling to cover all their essential costs. That is actually the cost of my food shopping, my electricity bill AND my gas bill combined that I will be losing. Yes, readers, this Universal Credit breakdown is my own, personal breakdown of how the changes will affect ME.

I haven't included Council Tax Benefit in the second calculation at all because it will be administered in a different way, each Local Authority will have the power to decide WHO they pay help towards Council Tax costs for, AND how much of the council tax that is due for that property they will pay. So I may be EVEN WORSE OFF if they decide not to continue to cover the ENTIRE cost of Council Tax for someone who is unemployed. I may be losing MORE than the £144.66 already stated.

Still think that the new benefits cap is the right thing to do?

I fully accept I'm going to get a flaming for this post, and I accept that the amounts may shock you - but if I DID still get disability benefits for myself, or if I got them for my two disabled dc, I would be a) Exempt from the cap, and b) Getting a Shed-load MORE money. I have been coping without the disability benefits since the Coalition changed the criteria (just, as I have VERY high transport costs due to being unable to run a car, I spend £52 a week on bus fares to get my dc to the school they were allocated due to a combination of both mine and my DS2's disablities).

Just take a minute to sit and think about how you would SURVIVE if you had NO wriggle room, no savings, no way of just 'going out to work' if you were unable to get ANY Childcare for special needs children locally, so you have no way of improving the situation, if you were to LOSE £144.66 a WEEK, OR MORE, of your current income.