In hoping the benefits cap may prove to be A Good Thing?

[thepeoplesprincess]

In the long run. For private renters anyway.

As things currently stand, private landlords are getting away with charging extortionate rents that few can afford because the shortfall is made up by Housing Benefit. So if benefits are to be capped, landlords will (hopefully) be forced to lower their rents to affordable levels or sell up if they can't find tenants that can and will pay hundreds of pounds a month. Either will be great for the average Joe IMO.

BBC have an article on a family living on benefits... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185 The benefit taker sums it all up in the last line by saying this cap will mean his family has to choose between eating or heating. Does anyone else think it funny that he doesn't even consider reducing the 24 cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large pouch of tobacco, or reducing his Sky subscription (already mentioned in his weekly expenditure )before starving his family? I can't believe he pays Sky over £60 a month, I don't know about the alcohol and tobacco except that I know I can't afford it on a working salary.

I know I can't afford that on benefits...I only have the net because my uncle pays for it for the dc's homework,I just get the added benefit of being able to use it when they aren't doing homework...I don't pay for sky tv, or a tv license - my Ex-P pays for that as 'additional maintenance' for the dc. He CHOOSES to do that.

And I've got 4 dc...so how the heckity do THEY do it, that's just my opinion. Them having misplaced priorities is NOT a case for reducing benefits - because that will penalise the majority of people on benefits who DO have sensible priorities.

There are already benefit caps for every single thing.

It is based on the minimum the government has decided that they require to live. So surely this will push people into destitution.

Not sure why they want an overall cap based on one persons average wage to be applied to an entire household, but I expect it is purely PR, and has been quite successful in pushing the whole "scroungers" attitude.

On the other hand...

Don't look now but we are going back into recession. Wages and jobs are sinking fast.

Don't look now but the NHS is being parcelled off to private companies and you'll be paying for your healthcare (in top up charges or insurance premiums) plus a profit for the company prob by the end of this parliament.

Don't look now but the government have decided that if you lose your job, you'll have to work for free for private companies. Forced, unpaid labour, yes. Against several of our laws and human rights.

Don't look now but you're losing the right to a fair trial. Legal aid cuts mean you may have to be your own lawyer, DIY.

Benefits bashing is a good distraction tactic, Ill give them that. Lets continue adding up hooow much they spent on whaat!?

Not sure why they want an overall cap based on one persons average wage to be applied to an entire household, but I expect it is purely PR, and has been quite successful in pushing the whole "scroungers" attitude.

The cap figure is NOT one person's average wage. The cap is a figure based upon the average working family's income.

Yes, the average salary per person might be somewhere around the £26,500 being talked about, but that's BEFORE taxes.

No its the average wage for a single person.

No its the average wage for a single person.

Ok, well in that case no one's bothered to tell Cameron, because the government (and the press) are quoting the cap as being based on an average 'working family's income' of £500/wk.

There is no mention anywhere of single person's income.

In fact, as you're so convinced it's to do with single people, have a look at the DWP's Impact Assesment and then tell them they're wrong about what the cap's based upon, too.

That impact assessment ADMITS that there WILL be people who are defined as disabled under the DDA and the Equality Act 2010 that will be affected by the cap UNLESS they are working enough hours to be exempt. This will affect REAL people - only 30,000 of the claimants will be protected. And that number is falling all the time because of the amount of people with disabilities that ATOS is wrongly deeming fit for work.

This Government really just don't give two HOOTS about Single Parents or the Disabled, do they?

I don't know where you found that Impact assessment, but some of the stuff it contains is just .

You do know that the transitional protection is a total joke, that they don't expect to be paying ANYONE after 2015, don't you? They have set such arbitary criteria on what makes you LOSE the transitional protection it is unbelievable.

Like, if you are given transitional protection, and then MOVE house to a cheaper house - you will lose your transitional protection as you have had a change of address. Despite the fact that you are doing so to try to REDUCE your outgoings.

Or, your baby turns 1yo - that counts as a change of circumstance that will make you lose transitional protection. Or your youngest child turning 5yo. Or 12yo. Or a new partner moving in. Or your partner leaving you - so you could have a woman, who as part of a couple gets transitional protection - then her partner walks out, she not only loses her partner, but she will also lose her transitional protection, and may have to move house AND move her dc's school AND move away from all her support networks. And THAT'S not going to have a severe impact on that family?

I just can't believe that they are so blind to the effects this will have on REAL PEOPLE. Not numbers. Not 'scroungers'. But on REAL LIFE PEOPLE.

Not only do they not give two hoots about single parents, that document lays out exactly how they think the cap will disproportionately affect LPs.

It says:

?Approximately 40% of households who are likely to be affected by the cap will consist of five or more children whilst over 80% will consist of 3 or more children. Fewer than 10% of households likely to be affected by the cap will consist of no children at all?.

?Estimated make up of capped households

Couples with:

? No children: 0%
? 1 or 2 children: 5%
? 3 children: 15%
? 4 children: 10%
? 5 or more: 10%

Lone parents with:

? No children: 5%
? 1 or 2 children: 10%
? 3 children: 5%
? 4 children: 10%
? 5 or more: 35%"

I can understand (although I don't agree with) their reasoning that if people know they won't get "paid" for having children, that maybe they'll think twice before having more.

But even if you agree with that, how will driving children who already exist into poverty help anyone? Their parents can hardly go back in time and decide retrospectively not to have had those children!

oops sorry I missed a word when I copied that over!

It should say "Singles or lone parents with no children!"

migratingsouth - can't you just pause children until you've got more money? Put them in storage, hibernate them?

Shellybobs = they are wrong about lots of things unfortunately.

ChickenLikn

Silly me, of course, I'll just cryogenically freeze them, why didn't I think of that before?!

Seriously though, it's horribly punative to children - real people - who will be much worse off, and what for? Pushing those children into poverty doesn't help anyone and will make our whole society poorer as a result.

Unles people think it's OK to sacrifice opportunities and protection-from-poverty for one generation of children as a warning to the parents of the next?

Personally I think that's totally immoral.