Don't cap my benefits - BBC1

[SoleSource]

Anybody watching?

OnI, there are thousands who do the same. Cover the bare minimum hours they need to gain tax credits and dont do anymore. Lots just have the one adult working to keep the household under the income band for them. Then many go on to have more children knowing they get more money.

But of course its all the landlords/governmens fault and they are just victims

Or maybe just the one parent works because that is the best solution for their family? Good luck to a couple who manages to arrange their working hours to need no childcare, that is unrealistic for many. And of course people only have children to get the tax credits. . It's really sad to assume that people make choices based solely on their entitlements. I'll say something for this Government, they do have this country sussed. The divide and rule strategy is working perfectly for them.

Realistic not sad re people making choices based on their entitlements. Do you really believe the couple earning £10k with five children OnI mentions would still work just those few hours if there were no tax credits or other benefits. Of course they wouldnt and i doubt they would have had five children either.

People on MN often admit to not working and being a SAHP as they can claim tax credits rather than go out and earn a wage. Likewise not taking extra hours or overtime. Lots encourage people to have children the person cant afford etc.

Tax credits were the worst thing ever introduced. Investing in childcare would have been much better.

I'm almost certain HappyMummy is a bot sent from the daily mail, or maybe direct from David Cameron's office

I didn't see the whole programme but my take on the problem is this. It's not greedy landlords but a ridiculous and unsustainable level of house prices fuelled deliberately by all the main parties. House prices are far too high in this country. People on decent incomes can't afford to buy or rent a decent place (and that trickles down to hb).

The government is terrified of the discontentment of negative equity and the impact on the baby boomers who 'feel' rich sitting on their equity. At some point we need to take the hit. Yes one generation will get stuck in neg equity but how long can this go on for? Everyone is struggling at the moment.

Instead all the tax credit top ups feed the problem and hide the fact that normal people cannot afford basic living costs in the uk. Then there's schemes like the govt underwriting first time buyer loans which just blow more hot air into the bubble.

As for the poster pages ago who said it's all immigrants who are inflating house prices in London. You are actually almost right (a bit too far right though eh!). It's not immigrants but foreign investors buying property in the nicest areas as they see this as a rock solid investment when the markets are a bit rough. They don't even let them, just leave them empty. This of course leads to trickle down to even the poorest areas.

For example I rented in London and paid 1600 for a 2 bed. Three years later rent was £2500 and downstairs (2 beds, cubby hole kitchen in the lounge the woman on the tv would not have liked it) sold to Russian investor to lie empty for best part of a million.

You couldn't make this stuff up...

So you think its right that a single person with three kids who works just 16 hours a week has the same net income as someone with three kids who works full time and earns £55000?

Incidentally only 10% of tax payers earn that much!!

Yy to everything munchkin master said

Was that to me fedupinbucks.

What I think is that it's awful that you need 55k to support a fairly meagre life style in our capital city and pissing about with housing benefit, tax credits and shipping folk off to Birmingham is such a sticking plaster solution it's laughable.

I'm actually not that bothered one way or the other but I am tearing my hair out that the main parties don't even want to think about the real issues.

We just bought a house an hours commute into London. We pay top rate tax. Why should we pay for others to live in the centre with 7 kids when they are not even working?

We have 2 children and have decided that we cannot afford to have any more. Why should some of the people on that show feel free to have as many as they like and not have to worry about it?

We pay the highest rate of tax. It sickens me to see that some of this is being spent on ungrateful people who take advantage of our country.

It's not right.

On one hand we got ourselves into this situation in the first place. We should have had much strickter benefits rules up front. It does need major reform but it is difficult to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. The fairest way would be to draw a line under it now and set a future date for changes to come in. For example they could bring in a law that says you can only claim CB for 3 children (3 is very fair as hardly anyone has 3 now) in a years time so that no one is affected now. This gives time to decide is you want a 4th or not. It is not fair to change peoples situations but you can give people fair warning for future rules and that gives them choices.

I agree in the main with munchkinmaster but I disagree about one generation taking the hit. One generation already has. In the early 90's, interest rates went through the roof and house prices plummeted. This was under the Tories btw. As I said before, I bought a house at the time and it was horrible to see all these empty properties that were previously homes. They were mostly bought as buy-to-let to rent back to the people who had defaulted on their mortgages or had just given in and threw their keys back. Its a vicious cycle and it needs to be broken, but I have no idea how.

Naked, they could simply give notice in stages. Theres nothing to stop them bolting the door now, they didnt open it Labour did.

Its the perfect time to start making changes whilst UC is in its first stages. It would be much better to just have a set rate and not base it on the number of children. No increase per child so encouraging personal responsibility.

Strict controls on how long they job seek for before they are expected to take on work experience (charities/communities would benefit if people dont want tescos too) and all non working adults expected to job seek bar any period of maternity leave. This then gives a level playing field to everyone rather than some mums going back to work whilst others get paid to stay home for an extra four years on top of maternity.

Any top ups for workers ideally would be in the form of childcare. If thats too way out there, then simply higher the number of hours needed to claim. Its very realistic to expect 30 hours min from each adult.

The system is too easy to abuse, its not about protecting those who need a helping hand anymore but how to gain the most from doing the least. The government need to get brave and tackle it properly.

Rather than the draconian methods of you are advocating how about making zero hours contracts illegal and actually tackling how employers get away with treating the lower paid? You might find that people are actually more keen to work then.

Zero hour contracts suit many though. Students, second earners in families that dont claim benefits etc.

They are just blamed for people not working. Lots of people are on these contracts and work many hours a week and are happy.

It just comes back to blaming others. Its never the persons fault. Scrapping zero hour contracts wont make those on benefits want to work, if they did they would already be working. Taking away the choice to live on benefits when physically able to work is the only way to get them to self support.

I don't see that SAHPs get paid to stay home either. That is a myth in the main. My husband stays at home currently and we pay handsomely for that with the loss of his tax free personal allowance.

SAHPs on benefits do get paid to stay home. Those whose spouse provides the only income do not. Hardly sends out the right message does it? Hence UC expects both adults to work if the income is under a certain threashold. Much better than what we have now but could go further.

If its a myth, lets just stop IS/tax credits to lone parents and couples where only one adult works as it wouldnt make a difference

You dont lose a tax allowance by staying home, it can still be used for savings. Even if you did lose it, you can hardly complain that you are not getting the first x of earnings tax free if not actually working!

They do suit many, it's my only option as a Carer for work, however a friend lost her custody case as her zero hour contract left her very vulnerable- every time her work stopped coming in, the benefits would take 3 months to process anew- and she eventually lost her home and she ended up in a bedsit with her son. Sadly dad lives outside Europe and she has not been able to afford to visit son for over a year.

It's the places that ONLY employ on zero hours that are in the wrong tbh, they are deliberately manipulating people's need for employment. As they said on TV this morning, if you are on zero and bullied, harassed, asked to work in unsafe conditions would you dare complain?

' It would be much better to just have a set rate and not base it on the number of children. No increase per child so encouraging personal responsibility.' Hmm, after our family was complete I had to become a Carer and then DH was made redundant. For a brief time we dropped overnight from £65000 to £0. Dh is now self employed so it's levelled off around £20k PA all in I guess and climbing, but I don't think that at any time we have been irresponsible. Also, consider the societal effects of extremely low income which include low health outcomes and increased NHS costs, low educational attainment, and indeed the feeling that society simply does not care about your welfare, with potential disaffectation. Are these worth the cost? personally I think not. They may not be immediate costs that show in the benefits system but they are very real, very large, and not easy to avoid when you are housed inadequately, under constant financial stress, unable to heat or feed well etc.

I don't believe the old benefits system was great and I agree it needed reform, for example it needs to reflect the needs of people on zero hour contracts etc, but I don't agree UC is right either. I am not in any way subject to any benefits cap thank goodness, but I have immense sympathy for those who are. I spent time working with families before DS4 that had ended up in homeless accommodation or seriously overcrowded housing, often through no fault of their own (an extreme case that jumps to mind is the family whose private landlord sold up then had them forcibly evicted without warning by heavies, family had 2 kids and a baby on way, Dad worked nights but ended up unemployed as the place they had to live in waiting to be housed was a single room and you can't sleep in the day in a single room with 2 small kids and your wife about you all day).

' Those whose spouse provides the only income do not. Hardly sends out the right message does it? Hence UC expects both adults to work if the income is under a certain threashold'

But it does not respond to circumstances.

For example, if your industry is one where the income comes in over a short time and then you have a few quiet months- say tourism- UC won't reflect that variability. You might well spend the quiet months painting / doing admin / redeveloping the property but in UC terms for several months a year you are too well off to need help, and then the remainder you will be on conditionality and potentially made to do workfare even though you need to be doing the stuff that makes you able to earn over the whole year. So someone who needs say £50 PW top up ends up unemployed and on welfare. Fab.

DH's industry is like this; if his income was (random figure) £25k PA, that would all be earned over about 3 month's actual on site work, but the rest of the time is spent in his premises on maintenance, planning, selling, drawing up CAD designs, health and safety work etc. All things he could not do if doing workfare. It would mean the business became unviable, when he hopes to start employing an apprentice and maybe admin support in the next two years. Whilst we try to save, we also need to invest and the work comes before the paycheques. For example, he is staging a large show this weekend, but has already spent 100 hours doing planning and CAD, and £200 on kit. plus basics such as rent, insurance. He gets to keep the kit for future hires of course, but the no income time HAS to precede the wages. if he's on workfare, there is no hope for the wages.

Which is hardly in any way useful to the nation long term, because we need those jobs, especially in the region I happen to live in.

But absolutely, as a Carer I suspect zero hours / self employment is my only possible route into work as we juggle 4 schools (2 MS 2 special) and I have to be on call for appointments, meetings etc and would be a PITA for any employer.

The difference is that it would be my choice, whereas someone whose industry only uses zero hours has no choice remaining.

Peachy - you're right about having the choice. I'm a carer and you CANNOT get guaranteed hours round here. It's a huge problem with tax credits as well as they just don't seem to understand that your income is variable.

Zero hours contracts are fine if it suits the employee as well as the employer. But there are now large sectors where it's the only option.

I am late to the thread. I have just moved to my first Housing Association house...out of a private rental. I wasn't offered a house in my own area and to be honest I was bloody happy to have the chance....then at the last minute, a flat came up in my own town and I grabbed it. BUT I would have been happy with the one in the town which was far from home but affordable....people need to expect less...they're not owed an affordable home and if they must move then they must.

I moved from the NW to north London to work, then to Surrey, then to 4 other countries to work. I am now moving to Essex for work. Most people I know move around with their work to be able to support themselves. Why should those on benefits be any different?

Gosh please interchange the word "work" with jobs, employment, careers etc.

well said, i couldnt have put it better myself!

i would just like to reply to you as i saw what you wrote about me on mums net.
i have only been claiming benefit for 3 years and yes 3 years is too long but i am nearly half way through a 2 year college course to enable me to work full time. i had no choice but to move out of the house that i was in because as the landlord clearly stated in the documentary he does not want to let ANY of his properties out to people on benefit again ( might i also add because of the benefit cap). i also have a 16yo that did not want to be filmed, but i have brought her up as a full time working parent.
circumstances beyond my control that i am not willing to discuss with strangers put me in the position that i am in today, so please dont judge me on what little pieces of my life you have seen.
oh an the job center pay for my childcare while i attend college and my voluntery work because i went to them and asked them to help me get back into work, and this is what they offered me! and believe me if i was offered a job and i was walk out of it with £300pw i would have jumped at the chance but what the documentry failed to add was the bills ie chilcare that i would have to pay out of that!

thank you
tracy mccarthy