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.

I think its a good thing no-one should be able to receive more than £500 a week in benefits. The welfare bill has ballooned in recent years to levels where it is no longer sustainable or affordable. Reforms are needed to get the welfare bill down

I have never actually met anyone who gets £500 per week on benefits

Bit surprised people discuss exactly what benefits they get to all and sundry but however many this will affect it's common sense.

To explain again - being evicted is not the same as a planned house move (even an unwilling one).

The cap isn't per individual, it's per household.

So a large household which includes extended family, living comparatively cheaply and densely together, is more likely to exceed the cap than a small nuclear family or single person.

Since many mildly or moderately disabled people don't receive the qualifying benefit of DLA, but do get ESA and/or Carers Allowance, this measure will effectively target families looking after their own sick, elderly or disabled.

I read that 26k in benefits is the equivalent of a wage of 35k before tax. So in reality this is a lot of money and doesn't seem an unrealistic cap at all.

I can't live in certain areas because I can't afford it, and I had to downsize at another point in my life, but I was in control of both those situations (albeit stressful control), which is entirely different to having no control whatsoever and literally having to be homeless before having to go cap in hand to the council to request social housing and end up living in b&b, with children, until such time social housing becomes available. You simply cannot pretend they are the same thing as a working person being unable to live in Chelsea.

But a family with a gross wage of £35K would be in receipt of benefits on top of that - Child Benefit, tax credits and, in some areas, Housing Benefit just because house prices are so ridiculously high.

sunshine - unfortunately many people in the current climate are being forced to sell their house or move because they can't afford to continue living where they are. Under this cap, I understood people are given 9 months to find cheaper accommodation - hardly being put out on the streets.

Yes nilfri - but the point is to make sure that somebody working is better off financially than someone not working. And tbh I would have thought such a cap would affect very few families.

The cap is set at 26k, you would have to have a job paying 35k in order to get the same level of income, its outrageous that someone can get the same amount of money through welfare as someone earning 35k a year. Is it any wonder that the public finances are in such a parlous state when we have such arrangements in place.

Private landlords can charge what they like and will not reduce their rents if HB is capped. Rental prices are high as people have no choice but to rent as they can't get a mortgage. Supply and demand, I suppose. Lots of renters = high rents, espec where there is a property shortage

lesley - how many people do you think will be able to find cheaper accommodation? There is a shortage of affordable housing as it is, and the new cap will only cover the bottom percentile of local rents.

For example, in my area, there is a cap of £412 per month for a 3-bedroom property. Try finding a privately available house for that. A small number exist but they are snapped up immediately when they appear on the market.

If the cap will affect so few families (again, households, poloi, not individuals), why bother with it?

Anyone affected would by definition be an unusual case.

But in practice I strongly suspect this will hit families with more than 2 adults and those with mild to moderately disabled members.

Sorry, part of that was to lesley.

I'm not sure why people are doubting that people are claiming in excess of 26k in benefits and that there isn't a huge disparity between working vs. not working exists - there is... taken from a previous poster that I spotted last week:

^Wages (20 hours per week) £209
Housing Benefit £188 (leaving £7 for us to pay)
Council tax benefit £19 (leaving £3 for us to pay
Tax Credits £196
Working tax credits £13
Child benefit £60.50
Thats over £35K tax free! DH's fulltime wage was £34k before tax.^

Then you also have to add in:

• Commuting costs not needing to be paid (public transport pass or forced to run a car, potentially paying parking or tolls for the bridge or congestion charge, or buy a bike - whatever)
• Work clothes not needing to be bought / less wear and tear on shoes/coat
• Childcare stuff
• School meals potentially
• Eye exams / glasses
• Dental bills
• Prescriptions

.. and that's just off the top of my head!

I think the above highlights that if you're on a middle wage, earning just about too much to get help so having to fund most of your living costs yourself, it can easily spiral that you end up in a worse situation financially than someone on benefits.

I think the cap to housing benefits is a different issue and I think this is having a big impact in some areas. Where I live you could rent a house no problem for that, but in some areas where house prices are high, the rental market is very tough.

But the 26k is an overall cap, not a cap on housing benefits - and this I agree with.

sounds like it will affect people living in expensive areas the most. since many working families can't afford to live in these places it seems a bit off that people on benefits can - especially those on benefits over 6 months. and i guess people living in very big properties - again many working people can't afford them so why should benefit claimants have them?

people will have to move to cheaper areas, which is what many working people do when they try and buy houses - especially at first

"sleepyinseattle Mon 23-Jan-12 16:50:52

I'm not sure why people are doubting that people are claiming in excess of 26k in benefits and that there isn't a huge disparity between working vs. not working exists - there is... taken from a previous poster that I spotted last week:

^Wages (20 hours per week) £209
Housing Benefit £188 (leaving £7 for us to pay)
Council tax benefit £19 (leaving £3 for us to pay
Tax Credits £196
Working tax credits £13
Child benefit £60.50
Thats over £35K tax free! DH's fulltime wage was £34k before tax.^

Ummm...well take off the £209 because that is wages, so already subject to tax, and not benefits.

so £476.50 per week in benefits (£24,778)

£269 per week is actual 'cash benefit'

Take off £60.50 per week because all parents get it

£208.50.

They would not be entitled to school meals because they get £13 per week in Working Tax Credit.

For example, I have 3 children. School meals would be £30 per week, but because we receive £8 in WTC, we aren't entitled to free school meals, which means that in effect we are £22 per week worse off.

They wont lower their rents they just wont rent to those on benefits, its hard enough for someone on benefits to rent, it will just be harder.

!!! 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 earn a wage for 40 hours a week I also £56 a week HB, £47 WTC and 96 DLA.

I have no children at home, thats just for me.

I live in Canada where there is no equivalent of HB for singles and the unemployed. They do give poor working families something like HB. You had better believe that there are lots and lots and lots of people sleeping on the street. I have worked in shelters here and in the UK and it is much worse here.

A working family have to move to an "affordable" place to buy so why shouldn't a person on benefits move to a place that has "affordable" rent.

How To Create Slums And Ghettos:

Step 1: make a person on benefits move to a place that has "affordable" rent.