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?

VerylittleGravitas - I can see how disabled children make life emotionally difficult, but that's not the issue raised here, it's about whether it will financially still be possible after these changes.

What extra costs are associated with these disabilities? If that exceeds £600 a month, then the unfairness is in the fact that these costs are not covered (anymore) but I don't think I've seen that posted anywhere yet?

THANK YOU, VLG.

Yes, I ALSO have two children with disabilities. Which cost me extra money. I live 1.999 miles away from my 8yo & 9yo's primary school. If I had HEALTHY children, I could WALK them to school. I cannot DRIVE them, as I am not allowed to hold a UK drivers license due to my epilepsy. BUT, and it's a big but, my 8yo has SEVERE BRITTLE ASTHMA THAT IS LIFE-THREATENING. He ALSO has EDS type II and two different muscle problems. He CANNOT PHYSICALLY WALK 1.999 miles once a day, never mind twice a day.

I HAVE to catch the bus to get the dc to school (there's no safe walking route for an unaccompanied 9yo, so he has to go on the bus too). This costs me £52 a WEEK, as before 9am, my local bus companies charge an adult fare for children, and even after 9am, a child fare here ISN'T half fare, it's 2/3 of the adult fare.

I can't use my free bus pass that I get because I have epilepsy before 9.30am. Which is not much help when you need to catch the 8.15am bus to get your children to school on time. I cannot get help with the children's bus fares because I live less than 3 miles away from the school. I can't pay for the bus fares out of the DLA my son receives, as he doesn't RECEIVE ANY. Because he CAN walk a VERY short distance.

What you are missing is the £216pcm I spend on getting my children to school. Which is a DIRECT COST of both mine and my DS2's disabilities. PLUS the fact that my electric costs more due to his medical equipment (Hepa air filter, running the Hepa filter hoover more often, washing bedding daily), and I have just been told to find £300 to buy him a nebuliser as the PCT no longer fund them.

Oh - and how do you figure a cost of just £600 for my utilities and food? I spend £25-£30 a week on electric alone, then there's my gas, £30-£40 a month water, £100 a week for food and nappies for 5 people...then clothing and shoes etc - DS2's shoes cost £120 because he needs Piedro's that our PCT will only fund for the UNDER 5's, regardless of NEED.

I wouldn't presume to speak for Hunty, but my moderately Autistic son needs nappies, special food, a car (can't walk or use public transport due to behavioural issues and hypermobile joints), SALT and OT, transport to Hospital on a regular basis, replacement clothes and furniture (he destroys things), specialist writing equipment, cutlery, toys, a warmer-then-usual house...the list goes on.

It's fucking expensive.

Oh, and my incontinent, dyspraxic, autistic, EDS-hypermobile, globally developmentally delayed son isn't considered disabled enough for DLA.

I'm not disabled enough either, despite the double whammy of Lupus and EDS, because...get this...I'm able-bodied enough to care for DS!

So you don't CARE what happens to those 0.26% of people? (I am sure that figure is wrong, yet more spin,based on the reclassification of 'poverty' that this gov. hads done, but I will number-crunch later as I have to go get DS1 from footy - don't worry - FREE after-school club, free for ALL in Y5, even the dc of HRT paying parents...)

They are REAL, LIVING BREATHING PEOPLE TOO. Are you saying that because it's only a 'few' people that will suffewr because of the changes, that their suffering doesn't bother you in the slightest??

We are expendable, obviously, the 'underclass'.

Oh, and BTW - when I was a HRT payer, I was GLAD that my taxes were supporting people who needed it. Obviously even as a HRT payer, my definition of 'who needed support' is different to yours, NiceGuy.

And I can't type NiceGuy without snorting now - How can you be a 'Nice Guy' if you don't care about other people's suffering?

I think we're stepping away from the op.

The fact is the vast maj of people affected by the capping won't have these issues.

I sympathise with what you are saying but it's a different issue to the op.

i think part of the problem is there is very rarely anything in the media about the upside of having a benefits system.

you would think with it being such a topic of the moment there would be a BBC series about different people on benefits.

so most people's experience is 'what they get equivalent of 35k for not working!?!'

But that's the point Mrs H

Broad brushstrokes are easy.

The fact is that the section of society dependent on support of one kind or another is made up of individuals, all with different reasons and circumstances.

It's easy to generalise if you ignore the living, breathing individuals.

Sorry, MrsHeffley, but you are WRONG. The people that will be WORST affected by this are those with a memeber (or members) of their family with an unrecognised (by the DWP) disability, and those on NMW WORKING but claiming Housing Benefit currently.

You'd be surprised at just how FEW 'scroungers' will be affceted by this as opposed to people like I am talking about.

I think that even ONE 'deserving' person suffering, or ONE child suffering, is too much in the 21st Century.

YY Hully to the 'braod brushstrokes'.

Hunty. I've never said we shouldn't support disabled/ill people. Your example earlier of the person who has suffered strokes and going blind is unfortunate.

But we're talking about two totally different things. My position is that the £26k limit is a very generous amount of money. What you are saying is that ATOS have deemed your friend to be fit for work and from your description it does seem a total travesty. But that's an individual instance which if the system was working, your friend would be exempt anyway.

I do care about others suffering. I have disabled people in my immediate family. My dad is registered blind, my brother is severely autistic, my cousin is paraplegic. Don't ever think I don't give a shit. I do. But there has to be a balance.

The topic of debate I thought on this thread was about a benefit limit for able bodied people. If the system is failing to identify disabled people then that's a different issue and something which I agree needs to be addressed.

The bottom line is there simply isn't an unlimited amount of money.

ok but as i have said a number of times before - my DP has two relative who have been ruined by the current system.

they are institutionalised by it. they have become feckless & lazy because the current system allows it... & they deserve a system that kick them in the arse before the younger one has totally waste his life.... like the older one.

the system you think is great, has been terribly distructive for them.

the system you think is great better than the proposed changes, has been terribly distructive for them

also DP works in schools where the parents dont spend the money in the children. a 3 year old hiding food because he was not fed properly at home.

other children where they have new clothes but at breakfast club they dont appear to have eaten since FSM the day before.

IMO these parents need less cash in their pockets and more state intervention.

Also i would like to see the UK provide more help globally - e.g. in Somalia there are 4 million people affected by drought & famine.

I think the aim of this cap is for I would describe as the 'Jeremy Kyle generation'. The unemployable who always seem to have money for fags, pets, drugs but dont have a job. I presume it is not to stop helping those with disabled children or disabilities.

Sadly I have seen too much abuse of the system with my own eyes. Friends who have claimed benefits and spent the money on new clothes as the money was not needed (Job Seekers Allowance) but they were "entitled" to it. Job Seekers Allowance is not means tested.

A friend whose business had collapsed leaving him with two teenagers, a mortgage and no income who said it was not worth him getting any job unless it paid 40k a year as he received so much in benefits. Sadly for him he then got very depressed, put on weight and sat in front of the TV all day. As far as I know he still has no job and this is from about 5 years ago. There is no incentive for him to work.

I also have friends who are an unmarried couple. They live on the breadline. He works nights as a fork lift truck driver, she is a TA. They literally have no money for any extras at all. They qualify for no benefits at all and they work so hard.

Oh and Hunty. Let's be clear what we're talking about here.

What is being proposed is that every able bodied family is limited to £2100 of benefits per month. That is a generous amount of money and more than most working people earn in a month.

Any family which is not fully able bodied is exempt. As I said earlier, if you want to talk about if ATOS are fairly identifying who is able bodied then that's a different matter. One which I'd probably agree that is failing.

Thing is, £2100 benefits sounds like a lot of money but depending on where you live it may not be.

If the rent is being increased and the HB will no longer cover it, then the tenant will have to find the shortfall some place. Moving house is not as simple because you have to FIND a house first that you can afford.

And again - as I have said many many many times - the lazy scroungers - why doesn't the government come up with a way to go against them? They have had the phone line where you can shop a scrounger - and how much benefit fraud have they found? Under 1%.

This punishing all benefit recipients because of the actions of individual wankers who play the system is wrong.

No one suggests that we should raise taxes because there are some individuals who play the system, ie park their money off shore.

Both of these examples cost the country money, but the second one is far more damaging.

"What is being proposed is that every able bodied family is limited to £2100 of benefits per month. That is a generous amount of money and more than most working people earn in a month.

Any family which is not fully able bodied is exempt. As I said earlier, if you want to talk about if ATOS are fairly identifying who is able bodied then that's a different matter. One which I'd probably agree that is failing."

I agree with this post. If there are a lot more children I do think allowances have to be made.

One last try to explain why the cap is unfair for those who actually want to attempt to understand it: here

OM I read it.

hunty - You said in your earlier post that a £600 drop in benefits was the equivalent of your gas/electricity bill plus food, so that's what I based that on.

It sounds like you spend about £100-£120 a month on electricity, £40 on gas, and water unspecifiied (£20?). Then there is £500 on food/nappies (£100 a week, but I've rounded it up for contingencies). That means £680 in total, £80 more than the initial amount I assumed.

Then there is £216 on travel, which is less than what most people will spend on car finance/insurance/gas if they travel to work each day.

This leaves a good £300 left a month to pay for clothes, entertainment, insurance, phone/internet. And that's after the changes.

So far, your financial figures suggest that £26k a year would just about cover all your costs without having to make major cutbacks in any area. None of the figures you've posted so far are higher than what the average family would pay out. We all pay substantial amounts towards travel, housing, food etc. If medical bills are what stretches you over your limits, then it's time to appeal to individual decisions, and yes, you can get very angry at how your assessments were done if they don't cover these costs. But again, that doesn't prove the cap is wrong, it proves that there may be an issue with the right people being exempted out.

It is long overdue. If people who have to shell out money to get to work, buy workclothes, lunches etc on limited means can survive on the discussed amount of money so can people claiming benefits who are not at work. I don't mean people involved with caring for the disabled.

If you are at home you have more time to do things e.g. cook a cheap meal. You don't need clothes for work or train fares.

You are not running around the supermarket on your way home from work.

Also if someone has to move out of London and go somewhere else that's life. I can't afford to live in central london and both myself and my DH work. Children have to move school. If someone's house is repossessed what do they have to do?

NiceGuy2 - If you are already IN social housing, you CAN'T just up sticks and move. If your rent is only 80% of market value and you STILL can't afford to pay all your rent AND your basic living costs, then your options are to a) TRY to get a house exchange. Which you're NOT going to get if you live in an expensive area, because the people that would exchange with you won't be able to afford the rent either, or b) Get a Private rented house in a cheaper area. Which will actually cost MORE because it will be 100% of market value. So you STILL won't be able to afford the rent. And that's if you can even FIND a Private rented property that ACCEPTS HB/LHA claimants. Which most wont. Because their BTL mortgages say they CAN'T accept HB/LHA claimants. As does their BTL insurance. Catch-22 much?

WHERE are these people meant to move TO?

The UC cap is NOT going about finding the solution to the housing benefit bill in the correct way. The ONLY sensible solution to it is to enfore a rent cap on the LANDLORDS. MAking it so that THEY can't charge that level of rent. Which would solve the HB bill problem WITHOUT causing homelessness on a grand scale.

And that £2100 per month figure INCLUDES a LARGE percentage that will go STRAIGHT INTO THE BTL LANDLORD'S POCKET. It won't be seen by the claimant, if they wish to keep a roof over their heads. If your rent is £720pcm (and that's a figure for a HOUSING ASSOCIATION house, NOT a private rented house, so social housing), you will NOT get that full £2,100 a month ANYWAY.

Let me break that down for you. Maximum UC of £2,100. You can only claim for £480 of your rent. But they deduct 1.5 times that amount from the UC they pay you. So that lowers the amount they pay you to £1,380 UC + £480 UC housing element. THEN out of that you still have to pay £720 rent. So you are getting a total of £1,860 from UC, but paying out £720 rent. So you are down to £1,140. Now, you have to bear in mind that this will include your child benefit. So, in my case, with 4 dc, that would lower it by another £262. Leaving £878.

And, I feel obliged to point out that almost NO-ONE will get the 'maximum' of £2,100pcm UC. Because 99% of people that CLAIM UC WILL have to claim SOME help with housing costs, even if they are in work. Even Full-time work. I myself have 4 dc, and the UC that I will get paid is CONSIDERABLY less than the £2,100 quoted. Despite the fact that my rent will be rising to £720pcm. So I don't believe that ANYONE will ACTUALLY get that £2,100 figure. My family will be pretty much at the top end of it, and I will only get what I stated in my earlier post. There will be barely ANYONE who will get more than that when UC comes in.

Alemci, that is a very good point. I recently started a part time job but after my expenses etc it meant I was taking home a very low wage (I dont claim any benefits). I was having to work on a day to day basis with them telling me when I was needed. The parking in our town is £3.60 for a morning and £4.40 all day. Every time I worked it was the £3.60. Some days I was running into the supermarket for ready meals, some days the kids were getting on the bus to school £2 each per trip and it all mounts up. Each day I was doing 20 mins unpaid work blah blah blah.

Anyway I decided not to continue with the job and like you say am at home but now have time for some extreme budgeting, I catch the bargain meat as it is being put out at Tesco. I meal plan for each day too so this has cut the food budget down.

We dont have pets or gamble or smoke, we live where we can afford. We got completely battered by the recession, lost just about everything except each other.

Someone said 'It is not the fault of claimants that the cost of housing is so high in some parts of the country.'

It IS the fault of the benefit payments that the cost of housing is so high. If the benefit payments were lower rents would be lower.Obviously landlords are going to demand max amount they can.

Truly beggars belief that unemployed can live in private rented property at 10 times the council rate for similar property.

Hopefully rents will come down.
The letting business will be less profitable.
Landlords will be more likely to put these houses onto the market.
This will increase number of housing available to buy
This will lower house prices.
First time buyers will be able to get on housing ladder.

Win Win Win Win should have happened years ago