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?

KitchenRoll - I am not disputing that the fact that the DWP doesn't seem to recognise mine* or my dc's disabilities is making things a LOT harder for me. What I AM saying is that there are THOUSANDS of people in similar situations, who USED to get disability benefits, that should have been protected from the 'cap', that now WON'T BE, because the DWP and the coalition government have changed the criteria for people to QUALIFY for those disability benefits.

You are looking at it as if MY situation is unusual. It's NOT. Someone with MH problems could be in my situation. Someone with Fibromyalgia. Someone with CP. Amputees. The list goes on and on. Basically, anyone with a disability that is 'variable' will no longer get disability benefits. So won't be protected from the cap.

And saying that I won't solve the problem of the fact that it's not the benefit cap that affects me, it's the DWP not accepting that 52+ epileptic seizures in a year should qualify you for disability benefits ISN'T GOING TO HELP ME WHEN THE CAP COMES IN, IS IT???.

So YES, given the issues I have surrounding my disability, the benefits cap WILL adversely affect me. So YES, the benefits cap IS the problem for me.

Could I make that ANY plainer to you, Kitchenroll?

(having said that, I do think there is an issue about people on low incomes, especially in central London - I think if I were PM -haha - for people living in Central London, and in work, I would either have a Central London allowance, OR an exemption from the cap)

I have not lived in the UK for many years but I'm baffled by some of the rents quoted (500 GBP/wk for a 1 bed flat !!?)
It seems clear that the rents have been artificially inflated by the benefit system, and that this needs to be curbed.
But it seems that the current proposals will penalise the vulnerable (ie tenants) rather than those who have been reaping the benefits (ie landlords) at least in the short term.
More thinking needs to be done.

Cadbury, it's a vicious circle - the landlords are all saying they'd rather not let the properties at a lower than market rent, so they won't lower the rent.

Also, with the housing market the level it is, the average age for buying is 37, and so many more people are renting, and able to pay a higher rent.

I wish people like Hammy would actually read the examples of REAL LIFE people who are posting on this thread.

These cuts are like using a hand grenade to sort out a wasps nest. Yes, you kill the wasps but at what cost to the innocent bystanders who have just been unlucky in life.

Again. Most of the "benefits" go straight to the landlords or to council tax. Very little is retained by the claimant.

And they often have no choice about where they live.

The answer must be more social housing.

Yes, agree Cadbury.

To be fair, the £500/w is more on temporary accommodation, I think.

We looked at moving to London area, but DH would have to take a 40% drop in salary, and house prices would be the same if not more as in Munich.

Could you lose the money you use to buy all of your food, your electricity AND your gas bills each week? Because THAT is the reality facing a lot of people like me.

The in my previous post was meant to like to this paragraph: Many people that were able to claim disability benefits in the past are now being found 'fit to work' by ATOS, and therefore no longer get any disability benefits. Some of these people that are found 'fit to work' by ATOS have DIED the day after ATOS have assessed them as fit to work full-time. People with Cancer that are undergoing chemotherapy have been found fit to work by ATOS. Anyone with epilepsy that has less than 700 seizures a year* is being found fit to work by ATOS when they are re-assessed. People with MH issues are being found fit to work by ATOS. People with severe agoraphobia, who cannot leave their house, are being found 'fit for work' because they are UNABLE TO ATTEND AN ATOS CENTRE DUE TO THEIR DISABILITY. People in WHEELCHAIRS are being assessed as fit for work by ATOS, because they aren't attending their appointment in an upstairs office WITH NO WHEELCHAIR ACCESS. There are HUNDREDS of conditions that are no longer eligible for disability benefits, most of whom have disabilities that you or I would SEE give them significant barriers to gaining AND KEEPING employment.

So, before you say that people with disabilities are protected, I suggest you READ some personal accounts online. I shall be back in a short time to post some links.

Oh - And this Government has illegally IGNORED advice from numerous disability charities telling them of this, and how the change to PIP will make it even worse. Please, please, please do some PROPER research on the REAL effects of these changes before writing it off as only affecting the long-twerm unemployed 'scroungers'. It is all there, online.

Mrsheffley...... Why are you so bitter you can't afford to live near your dp's family? They could move to be near you couldn't they? After all, it seems to be the recurrent theme today 'just move'

Anyone know what % of private rentals are HB claimants? I imagine it's small, so I presume high rents are not driven by this, more than general property inflation and supply and demand etc.

At October 2011:

The total number of people receiving Housing Benefit was 4.92 million, with 5.88 million claiming Council Tax Benefit.

3.64 million Housing Benefit recipients were aged under 65, representing almost three quarters of all Housing Benefit recipients.

68 per cent of Housing Benefit recipients were tenants of Social Sector landlords.

Around two thirds of both Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit recipients are in receipt of a Passported Benefit.

The overall average Housing Benefit award is £87.03 per week, and for Council Tax Benefit recipients, the overall average award was £15.72 per week.

3.89 million Housing Benefit recipients were single, with almost two-thirds of these being female. Of the 1.68 million recipients with at least one child dependent, 1.15 million of these were single.

almost 5 million people claiming housing benefit and the average was £87/week

And if 68% were LA houses, then it stands to reason that the rest are private rentals.

I'm bitter re the argument that not picking where one lives is deemed as a reason not to do this and a hardship.It's not a valid reason.Plenty of people don't live where they'd like to or where family live.It's called real life not hardship.

"What they should do is increase social housing in town by sorting out some of the thousands of long term empty state owned properties around the place."

Why should long-term workless households be given social housing in Central London? Surely it is better to give social housing to those in medium to low incomes who at present have to commute long hours and pay crazy rents in teh private sector? Why reward those that choose not to work with subsidised housing in the centre of one of the most expensive cities on earth? Those that have no intention of working can live anywhere in the country as they don't need to commute to work. They will be able to find cheaper housing in places like Liverpool, Newcastle etc. No reason why those that do work and have to commute for hours into London should suffer so that those that don't can have better housing opportunities. We need to end this culture of something for nothing as it is going to bankrupt the country morally and financially.

Mmelindor

I'm not sure what you mean.

As I understand it, those who get WTC would be exempted under the current proposals.

Those who earn enough to hit the WTC limit would then need to be getting an additional £26k (ie. £35k salary equiv) of benefits on top of their salary before they hit the cap.

So including their salary they'd have an effective income most of us could only dream of before they were affected. Just so they can live in a part of London which they otherwise can't afford.... sounds bonkers to me.

Sorry I'd expect them to move. Hundreds of taxpayers are needed to fund each person getting £26k in benefits. Hundreds of which couldn't afford to live in the expensive parts of London.

Sorry but just roffling at this

"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."

In response to

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

How can anyone think that moving 110,000 children out of their existing schools in london and putting them somewhere else (where?) is not going to present any logistical problems

Orwellian
Surely it is better to give social housing to those in medium to low incomes who at present have to commute long hours and pay crazy rents in teh private sector?

Do keep up, dear. These are the people who will LOSE benefits.

Yes, the lazy scroungers will too, but many more of the low income hard working families will lose out.

HuntyCat, that is an entirely different issue though. That is nothing to do with the proposed cap. It is of course wrong that people with disabilities are being forced off DLA, and I would totally argue that they should remain on DLA.

Niceguy
I think you are misunderstanding something, but I will ask hunty to answer you cause she is a better numbercruncher than I am. I believe there are changes afoot to the WTC.

It is not the fault of poor people that there is not enough social housing.

People are so bitter.

In a nutshell, it is absolutely correct that someone on DLA be exempt from the cap. How you define who should be receiving DLA is a major concern - there are definitely some people who get it who shouldn't, and a great many who don't, who should.

More Social Housing just isn't going to happen. And, rather than put a CAP on the rent that LANDLORD'S are allowed to charge, which they won't do as DC himself is a BTL Landlord, they are putting a cap on the help the unemployed AND those on a low wage can get help with towards their rent. While AT THE SAME TIME raising Social Housing Rents to be 80% of the price of the local Private rents that are paid to BTL Landlords. .

And, in my town, LESS THAN 1% of Private Landlords will accept tenants that are in receipt of HB/LHA. They normally charge a PREMIUM on their rent for this too! I fail to see how ALL of the people that will no longer be able to afford their CURRENT houses will be able to move into just 1% of properties. Or afford the rents in THOSE that may well be EVEN HIGHER than their current rent WHICH THEY ALREADY CAN'T AFFORD.

Oh - and 80% of Housing Benefit / Local Housing Allowance claimants ARE EMPLOYED (Albeit on or just above NMW). So HOW, exactly is this to 'save money'? It's ideological and political, nothing more, nothing less.

Tax Credits are/were a BUSINESS SUBSIDY that allowed employers to pay their staff LESS than a living wage. Now the Coalition government is not only STOPPING that subsidy, but they are not putting into place a HIGHER NMW to cover that. They are taking away the BUSINESS SUBSIDY that is Tax Credits in order to PAY big businesses like Tesco, Poundland and many others, to take on Workfare participants who work ft, unpaid bar their £67.50 JSA, which equates to an hourly wage of just £1.69/hr, to do their work without those big businesses having to pay them a wage AT ALL.

This is circumventing the NMW laws by the back door. And you are trying to tell me that THAT isn't ideological?

Most of the "benefits" go straight to the landlords or to council tax. Very little is retained by the claimant.

And you'll find that most people spend a very large proportion of their net income on mortgage, council tax, utilities etc.

I think we have to look at the total income and compare those.

To me the argument goes something like this:

Should we cap a family's income to the equivalent of £35k a year because it may mean they can no longer live in an area where a working family earning £35k a year cannot afford to live?

On the subject of disabilities, it makes me absolutely LIVID that some people in my family live an affluent life on full benefits, when they are absolutely capable of working, but have taken a lifestyle choice to do so, and are now applying for DLA to escape the cap, but have every luxury going, 2 exotic holidays a year etc etc when others I know have to fight and fight and fight for the bare minimum support for their disabled children.

I'm really not a 'hate those on benefits'. I hate those people who milk the system, because they are the ones really who make everything harder. And the more you subsidise them, the more they take. And as a country we can't afford it. The people who work hard and try and do their best are penalised so much (I'm not just talking low incomes here, low and middle incomes together pay SO much to support both the benefit system and the fat cats).

Mme - interesting stats (trying to educate myself). It looks like a high proportion on HB are single mums. Is child maintenance included in the cap. Surely blame must rest on the absent fathers.

Fwiw I totally detest the government. But I do think the welfare system needs reforming.