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?

Nobody has to just "upsticks" they have plenty of time to request a change in location or look privately.I have a friend who had to give up her social housing for various reasons in a lot less time and she survived.

I think the issue re landlords is a good one too it can only help to bring rents down.

I don't understand the housing aspect at all. Private renters and homeowners just have to cope when the shit hits the fan.I think within reason people should stay put but i do think those in social housing who work should pay a fair rent or teh govt should regulate renting so that a 2 bed house is a 2 bed house iyswim. The current system is unfair. My brother has a council property. He is single and it has 2 beds and a garden and has been renovated and he got to choose the kitchen etc. He was quite unwell when he was housed in it. It is in a lovely area and a family could easily live in it (size schools etc) The council suggested he re locate to a 1 bed no garden and he said no because it had a shower and not a bath and they accepted that! He uses one bedroom 12 x 12 for his clothes! It is unfair.

At the thought that I have £300 disposable income each month. After adding in costs of taxi's or delivery charges for my shopping (roughly the same either way), Travel to hospital appointments that are as far apart as Addenbrooke's, Queen's Hospital and GOSH, needing to try to save up for a Nebuliser that the PCT won't fund, needing to pay for my 11mo baby's Excema cream (yet something else my PCT will no longer fund), the therapy aids that DS2 needs, the additional house repairs caused by Autistic meltdowns from either DD or DS2, travel for DS1 to get to his young carer's support group (Another £10 a week - I ONLY included my basic travel to school originally), EXTRA clothing because DS2 chews his clothing, fiddle toys so that DD keeps on-track at school, glasses that DD seems to break or lose with frightenting regularity (the NHS will only give out a £30 voucher ONCE a year, after that, it's down to you to pay for BTW), Paying out for my OWN glasses practically EVERY OTHER time I have a seizure - I get through between 10 and 30 pairs of glasses a year, depending on how many times a year I have the money to replace the ones that break when I fall to the floor and have a seizure...

And YES, these costs SHOULD be covered by disability benefits. But they're NOT. And I am FAR from the only person I know that is in this situation.

I believe that we are "all in this together" to coin a phrase. If people don't want to work, why should they? I am quite happy to pay taxes to support the whole of the British society. Having differences is what makes life interesting. I don't believe there are that many scroungers out there as the Mail would like us to believe anyway. A tiny proportion which costs society a very small amount and the only way to sort these guys out is by educating them, giving them opportunities etc. Everyone else is trying their best and should be supported by the benefit system.

HuntyCat please can you explain that 1.5 multiplier on the HB that is removed from the total of £2100 because it sounds important.

Hunty surely the cream he'll get on free prescription,my son gets his and it's about the only thing we've ever had free.

Re the other things many of us have other expenses too. I had to pay out £50 for inhalers and other meds when I had a nasty bug (don't get free prescriptions),had to consider going without.We only have 1 very old car who gets poorly with frightening regularity(live out in the sticks so a necessity)......I get fed up with this mentality that those of us not on benefits can just get on with it (or have an imaginary money fairy) but others don't have to.

Many,many people have financial shit at times but get no help whatsoever.

Josie - it's NOT win win win for those who are made homeless in the meantime. BTL Landlords CAN'T reduce their rent - or accept HB/LHA claimants in most cases. Because of either their mortgage or insurance, or both. And that ISN'T going to change.

You have it back to front. It is NOT the case that HB rose first. What happened is that the lovely woman that is called Margaret Thatcher brought in the Right-to-buy, losing the country huge swathes of council housing. Without building any more. Then the people that BOUGHT their ex-council houses started letting them out. Which left lots less social housing.

THEN demand for social housing started to outstrip the supply of social housing. So some people who would have, previously, been housed in CHEAP social housing, had no choice but to rent privately, and pay higher rent. Which they couldn't cover out of their income. So the council covered it via, originally, rent rebate, then HB, and now LHA.

And because there was a much higher demand for private rented housing - the price went up.

So it was NOT the 'rise' in housing benefit that pushed rent prices up. It was the fact that DEMAND for social housing outstripped the SUPPLY.

The only beneficiaries? The BTL LL's. Like David Cameron. Is it any wonder that he doesn't want to impose a cap on the rent that private LL's can charge when it will directly hit his own pocket.

It CERTAINLY isn't the claimant that is benefitting. Have you thought that all these people in million-pound houses that the Daily Fail likes to spout about may not have had any CHOICE about the housing they were offered? If they had a home in Notting Hill repossessed, then it is the council in Notting Hill that is responsible for finding them a home. In their borough. And if that was the ONLY Private rented house that was of a suitable size, where the LL WOULD accept HB/LHA - then they would have had NO choice but to take it.

Tilly. If you claim for £720 of housing, but the maximum LHA they will pay for that size house in your town is £480, then under UC, they will give you a £480 Universal Credit Housing Element payment each month - but they will reduce the maximum UC that is availableo you IN YOUR SITUATION (different for every family make-up) by 1.5 times what they have paid to you. So if they give you £480 pounds UC housing element - they will reduce the REST of your UC by £720.

So, say you get £2,000. You claim for £720 rent. They will only PAY £480. Then they REDUCE the £2,00 by £720. Sooooo...you only get £1,760 UC IN TOTAL (including the housing element). Out of that £1,760, you have to pay you LANDLORD £720. So you are left with just £1,040.

Any clearer? Then you have to bear in mind that the amount of your Child benefit will be taken out of that £1,040 figure too.

HTH, Tilly.

MrsHeffley - my PCT is almost bankrupt, and has around 3 months ago, published a MASSIVE list of what you or I would assume is covered on prescription, that they will NO LONGER PRESCRIBE. So you have to pay for it. Things like medication for IBS. Excema creams. Finger sticks for diabetics. Verruca treatments. And many many more.

Nice that YOU live in an area where the PCT still funds those things. Not everyone does.

So people on benefits will still be able to claim, if entitled, up to the equivalent of a £35k per annum salary. Can't see the problem personally. Many working people have to survive on far less. And as for people having to move away from where they currently live- erm, isn't that what thousands of us do? I had to move away from my home town at 18- I could never afford to live there. And I've moved several times because work dictates it. Frankly this sense of entitlement that anyone should be paid MORE than the average working wage in benefits AND should be entitled to live permanently in a house/area which they cannot afford (funded ironically by other poor sods who cant afford to live there) is unbelievable !

Dude its the equivalent of a salary at £32K if in private housing and £40K if in social housing - its loads!

So when there is a NATIONWIDE shortage of housing where should they go?? Cheaper areas won't have the properties. This =homelessness. Homelessness=400 pw accommodation alone

No money saved. Lot's of ruined lives. Why are people not getting it? It's not rocket science.

HuntyCat so no one actually gets £26K, its a notional (pretend) figure.

so the whole debate about the pretax equivalent of £35K is wrong?

I'm on a low wage, wish I was on £26k a year that is for sure!

This argument about people being moved from high cost areas. Well, there are areas I'd like to live, houses I'd love to live in, but I can't afford it and cut my cloth accordingly. No one has a "right" to live in a place.

Hunty cat has gone to bake a bithday cake.

Good for her, she's wasting her time here.

You can lead a bigot to information but you can't make it think.

Why won't cheaper areas have properties exactly?

there is life outside of Central London and Surrey.

Because there is a housing shortage in this country.

Yes, i know I live in the south west.

Don't you dare call me a bigot just because I don't agree with your ridiculous justification of paying people over £35K to live in central London.

Disability benefits are included in £26K cap.

Sorry, but everyone seems to have missed this.

Here's a rather less selective quote from the link cited much earlier:

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

Exemptions for households in receipt of Working Tax Credit, Disability Living Allowance or its successor Personal Independence Payment, Constant Attendance Allowance and war widows and widowers.

So the large number of people receiving ESA (too sick/disabled to do any work) but not sick/disabled enough to receive DLA (need help with personal care or have serious mobility problems) may be penalised by the cap.

If they live alone, their benefits probably won't reach the cap, but if they live with family - possibly because of the illness or mild/moderate care needs - the household income is more likely to go over the cap.

That's before we get onto the problem Hunty described so eloquently, and which is not an anomaly, that ESA is not intended to cover people who are unable to earn their living or are unemployable because of illness, but people who are unable to do any work. People who could work a few hours in a good week are not eligible for ESA (not sick enough) and not eligible for JSA (not available for fulltime work).

Agree mrs heffley. Sign of a weak argument to just insult people who rationally express an opposing view

!!! URGENT BENEFIT CAP UPDATE !!! Government have updated their Benefit Cap impact assessment by removing 3 sentences from the original. This is scandalous and it looks like a deliberate attempt to apply 'spin' upon this afternoons debate and a sure sign that they are running scared. I urge peers and the public alike not to be influenced by this FLAGRANT attempt to manipulate the impact assessment to suit the governments own agenda. The new version says: The cap is likely to affect where different family types will be able to live. It is not possible to quantify these costs because they are based on behavioural changes which are difficult to assess robustly. And this is what the old version said, in the same space. The cap is likely to affect where different family types will be able to l...ive. Housing benefit may no longer cover housing costs and some households may go into rent arrears. This will require expense and effort by landlords and the courts to evict and seek to recoup rent arrears. Some households are likely to present as homeless, and may as a result need to move into more expensive temporary accommodation, at a cost to the local authority. It is not possible to quantify these costs because they are based on behavioural changes which are difficult to assess robustly. The three embarrassing sentences (in the middle) have just been deleted from the new version. PLEASE SHARE!See more
From Benefit Claimants Fight Back fb

I'm actually shocked that there are people who think having benefit capped at £26K is harsh!! It took me years of full time work to get up to a salary of that and I'm pleased to say I have now exceeded it. its was worth every minute. I'm a single parent as well (wow! how about that a single mum who actually didn't mind going back to work and didn't use having two very young daughters as an "excuse" not to) yes I paid extortionate amounts of money in childcare and it was hard to have a work life balance but there was absolutely no way I would consider sitting about taking handouts from a system that is there for the genuinely needy!

What I didn't do was expect to run modern car, smoke, drink, eat takeaways, shop for branded food, go on holiday, furnish my house with the latest gadgets and clothe my family in designer labels on that salary and I economised! I see a lot of people completely incapable of working out their priorities and budgeting according to their available income. I know people who are lazy and have no intention of working and will even admit it whilst I and millions of others get up every day and go and work to subsidise them and this cannot continue. I fully support disability/sickness benefits, assisting people who are made redundant unexpectedly etc. I think we should have a benefit system but you should NOT be better off on benefits, it should NOT be a way of life generation after generation it just cannot be sustained! Sod human rights. Some benefits should be paid in shopping vouchers and utility bill credits, you should feel a stigma being on benefits otherwise where is the incentive to work? Stop spending my hard earned taxes on cigarettes, sky+ and 50" TVs! :)

What I wonder is how are hotels and shops and offices going to be cleaned if we aren't going to help people live in expensive areas?

Central London is going to be a fucking shitheap because only people who earn ££ will be able to afford to live within spitting distance. Fares from zones 5 or beyond are completely out of reach if you're living on NMW.

This reform is way overdue! It's only now that the country is in the sh*t financially that this is even being focused on.