To think some posters need a "reality check" re. views on benefit changes

[lesley33]

I have some concerns about some of the proposed changes to benefits and how these may adversely affect people. So this is NOT a thread about that. But I am getting increasingly fed up at some of the frankly ridiculous reasons some posters are giving against the proposed changes. Examples include:

1. That children 12 and over will be traumatised if both parents work - even if second parent only works 20 hours a week.

1. That a parent with children 12 and over shouldn't have to commute up to 90 minutes each way to work. Far from ideal I know and if someone is on low wages this might not be affordable. But perfectly doable.

1. That childcare is impossible to get for teenagers. Ignoring the fact that many parents, myself included use a combination of kids home alone and afterschool activities.

AIBU to think some people need a reality check? Plenty of people with children already work, many with both parents working full time by the time their kids are teenagers. Plenty of people have long commutes, struggle with childcare, etc. Things might not be "ideal", but these are things that many many working parents already do.

It is way too high. I earn less than £20k and pay tax so I'm being shafted twice. Getting less money than these people and paying tax too for the privelige. The cap should be a bit less than 2 people working full time on NMW. That way, no-one is ever better off not working.

But a cap of whatever amount won't affect those 30 something professionals, because it's on monetary income, not in-kind benefits like housing.

So there's no logic at all.

But push these people out of social housing and into expensive private rentals, and then they are in a position to need housing benefit

So it's counter productive

Are the people earning under 20k not getting WTC or something?

And here is just ONE of the reasons that I find gaining AND *KEEPING employment. C&P from another thread:

DS2 won't be at school for the forseeable future (roughly a month), and I am having to help him with the worksheets the school have sent home. So I will just pop in and out of MN when I have the time.

I am in awe of how HE'ers manage on a permanant basis, especially when they have younger dc!

That's another barrrier to me getting and keeping employment - what employer is going to be happy with me taking 4-5 weeks off at a time when DS2 can't attend school because he is immune-compromised due to his other meds? It happens at least once a year, sometimes more. Yet he isn't disabled enough to qualify for DLA. . And it doesn't cause me ANY barriers to getting and keeping employment, him being unable to attend school for over a month at a time...

Shirley - after you earn £17.7kpa, you only get CTC not WTC. But you still get CTC up to a MUCH higher income than that. When you get to incomes of £16.8k (as ex-p was on) the WTC you get is just £4.28 a week. We were STILL better off then I am now though, and I would hazard a guess that those people saying that THEY don't get any top-ups are either 1) Not claiming for everyhting they are allowed to, or 2) Don't have any children living at home. And could therefore move to a smaller property if their outgoings were too high...just like they want people on benefits to do. Except they want even families with children to be stuffed into one-room studio flats.

AND I assume that they are forgetting that anyone on a low-ish income can claim Tax Credits if they have children at home, and Housing benefit if they are renting, or sell their home and rent if they can't afford to pay their mortgage and all their other bills. Why should it just be people on BENEFITS who have to do this?

I also assume that they are conveniently ignoring the fact that 80% of Housing benefits claimants ARE IN EMPLOYMENT AND THAT THE CAP WILL AFFECT THOSE PEOPLE TOO. Regardless of IDS's spin-doctor produced soundbite saying that thise on WTC who are working won't be affected. That statement is, frankly, a whole HEAP of guff. Because as of April 2013, WTC will no longer exist. And will be paid as Universal Credit, for those in work and out of work. And EVERYONE claiming Universal Credit will be under the cap unless they receive DLA at the highest rate. Even people with disabilities that CAN'T work, and claim ESA because they cannot work, will be included in the cap if they do not have enough additional care needs to qualify for DLA high rate.

And even DLA is going, to be replaced by PIP (Personal Independance Payment), which is VERY likely to be included in the cap. So that would mean that even every DISABLED person will be affected by the cap.

Yabu.

As I'm a LP I won't work FT when my DC's are teenagers. Let alone commute for 90 mins. I'll work PT, make them do their homework and hopefully stop them beating each other up.

As a child of a FT working LP I know that home life was pretty shit. Never did homework and me and my sister would hurt each other quite badly on a regular basis, police, SS and psychiatrist involved in my case. I'm going to do whatever I can to make sure my children don't suffer in the same way.

Oh for fucks sake, I cant remember which benefits thread I have commented on and keep finding new ones, and thinking "ah here it was" but NO! It wasn't! Def not this one tough...too many 3 letter acronyms.

IMO, the Welfare cap is unfair because the money mostly goes into the pockets of BTL LL's. BUT those BTL LL's that ARE renting to people on HB are making a PROFIT out of taxpayers money, while the TENANT will be left with not enough to live on.

OK, the profits from a BTL property may not be being realised NOW, but if they have bought them to gain additional income when they sell at retirement, to provide additional retirement income over and above the state pension, then they are GETTING A RETIREMENT INCOME DIRECTLY FROM THE TAXPAYER.

So the taxpayer will be paying their state pension and will ALSO have paid the mortgage on the property that will provide an ADDITIONAL retirement income, via tenants on HB. It is the equivalent of the taxpayer paying into a private pension fund for those BTL Landlords.

Meanwhile a lot of those tenants on HB won't even be ABLE to afford to pay into any sort of private pension BECAUSE of the horrific top-ups on HB due to the excessive rents.

The ONLY way to solve the homelessness crisis that is impending due to the benefits cap and lack of social housing is rent controls and a SOCIAL HOUSING building programme.

If that means that the pain is shared between some of those families on housing benefits (80% of whom work) in expensive houses having to move to a new house with cheaper rents, AND the BTL LL's that couldn't really afford to own and run a second home without the input of tenants on HB paying their mortgage costs for them having those houses repossessed, then it's all fair, isn't it, and the taxpayer is neither funding a 'wealthy' lifestyle (HA!) for housing benefit claimants (80% of whom WORK, remember) NOR funding a retirement income for BTL LL's.

We're all in this together, aren't we?

At least, David Cameron keeps telling us so?

meglet I can see why you feel that way, and I do too. But the difference I make that choice knowing I will not be asking anyone else to pay for it.

There will be LPs out there who don't get any benefits (just outside the threshold) who have to work full time to keep their home and so have to leave their teens. I think they would feel rightly very galled that their taxes are being spent on allowing someone the freedom to do what they can't.

But then you have the LUXURY of making that choice. If you have an 11/12yo with undiagnosed SN, or very irresponsible, or immature, that you KNOW isn't SAFE to be left at home alone, you DON'T have the luxury of making that choice. Neither do a lot of people whose dc DO have SN. Because if their care needs aren't enough to qualify for High-Rate Care on DLA (which is only awarded to children who need help through the night, so a child on Mid-rate care might sleep through but need constant supervision for ALL their waking hours, and a child on High-rate care might NOT need constant supervision by day, but have more NIGHT-TIME needs), then THEY will have to leave that 12yo home alone.

Which is interesting when you bear in mind that a child who needs costant supervision during the day is likely to be at a special needs school, and SN transport WON'T release the child into the care of anyone other than the parent. How do they do that if you are at work. If the PARENT isn't at home to receive the child when they are dropped off, the SN transport driver has to take the child to Social Services because they are not allowed to be left unattended. So where does that leave all of those with children on Mid-rate care, with 12yo's at SN school, that ARE going to be subject to the cap, if they can't stay at home and they can't NOT stay at home??

But meglet didn't mention SN!!!! Lord, stop seeing everyhting through the prism of your own life!

She already leaves her DC to work part time so one assumes they are not in danger during those periods!
She said she simply will not do it because she doesn,t think t's good for them.
Actually I agree with her but for thos efamilies who have no choice but to leave their DC, it's a tad galling. If you can't see that, then you have no empathy at all.

coraltoes Wed 25-Jan-12 14:37:27
Oh for fucks sake, I cant remember which benefits thread I have commented on and keep finding new ones, and thinking "ah here it was" but NO! It wasn't! Def not this one tough...too many 3 letter acronyms.

lol that should be quote of the week as it sums mn up at the moment

Hunty.... Really? An SN child can't be released to a designated carer other than a parent?

This isn't supposed to be a thread about the proposed cap though! It is more about the poor quality of debate on some threads.

Time for another reality check, I think.

The cap and Welfare Reform Bill are sold as "stopping lazy layabouts making a lifestyle choice to live on benefits."

But it's seriously hurting those who aren't making a lifestyle choice - or any kind of choice - whose lives are dictated by sickness/disability.

No that is bollocks.
I collect our SN foster child from his school and or transport often.

And of course a SN child can be released to another designated carer who isn't a parent.

wordfactory yes, I leave them to work PT but they're at nursery and school. They can't kill each other there.

When they're teenagers I'm not coming home to slashed wrists and general carnage like my mum had to. If I can be there for them from 4pm ish onwards to make sure they are ok and cracking on with homework then it will save a lot of misery.

"It is more about the poor quality of debate on some threads"

jESUS. CRUST

I didn't know that about transport

DD (11) lets DS (4) in most afternoons. I'm always in the middle of something and by the time I get to the door he's in the house and the escort is getting back on the bus. I don't drive / no car so as far as she knows I might not be in!

There are some very valid reasons to argue against the proposed changes though. Instead some posters spout nonsense such as - an SN child can't be released to anyone who isn't a parent.

meglet like I say I agree with you.

But I don't think you can expect others who have no choice but to tleave their DC pay for it and be happy about it.

winter you didn't knwo becaue it's not true.

*lesley8 I agree with you. There needs to be some serious consideration about the cap and its effects.
But, there also needs to be some serious consideration of how people who aren't entitled to anything at all feel. Spoting utterly ridiculous reasons for not working only pisses off people who have no alternative.