Capping benefits

[Banshee]

The Governement are doing an excellent job of dividing people and turning them against each other. (The old divide and conquer rule : They talk about capping benefits to £26,000, as poorer working people dont even get this amount. They are giving the impression that people have that amount in hand to spend.
When they lump in housing benefits with council tax it seems a large amount, but people on benefits do not get that in their hand. The rent is paid direct to the landlord, and the council tax is paid direct. The people claiming benefits never atually see that money. The useable income is the minimum amount that the govenment say a family needs to live on. The amount calculated is the basic amount the governement say you need to live. yes, it calculates per child, but then from that amount, they deduct the child benfit from the total. (a non means tested benefit that even the rich are entitled to)
The amount you actually receive is to pay for food, gas, electric, water etc as essentials, then any other family expenses, ie school trips, clothes etc. Yes there is a uniform grant but this is only paid every 2 yrs and does not in anyway cover the amount of the full uniform, plus it is only available for secondary school children & not primary school.
There is also an argument to be had for lower earners with families who are working, who need to claim benfits on top of that. This is shocking in itself, that working parents are not paid enough to earn the minimum amount that the governement has decided a family need to live on, and so have to supplement their income with extra benefits.
Both circumstances are wrong. Yet the governement would rather turn poor people against each other than tackle the real issues. They prefer the working class to fight against themselves and each other, than to rise up and use that feeling of unfairness against those it should really apply to, ie the super rich.

[Ann1]

Just to play devils' advocate here, could it not be argued though that working people to have 26k in the hand, you actually have to earn 35k. And working people, out of that 26k also have to pay housing costs i.e rent/mortgage and CT themselves, so they probably end up having the same disposable income as those on benefits? In other words, take away the HB and CT benefits from claimants benefits, and take away housing cost and CT from workers and they both end up with the same amount in their pockets.

Personally, I'd do it region by region as obviously housing costs in London is far more expensive than in our area, I'd also limit the CT, CB and CTC to 2 kids. To me it seems daft to have more kids if you cannot afford to keep the ones you already have, and also expect the council to provide a bigger house. Common sense dictates surely, that if you are a bit "snug" in a flat or house with the family you have, the last thing you should do is have even more people there!

By the same token, they should also have a maximum wage cap as well, so the likes of CEO's and bankers don't get salaries that look like Lottery winnings!!

[Banshee]

Jan 29, 2012 13:48:00 GMT 1 Ann1 said:

Just to play devils' advocate here, could it not be argued though that working people to have 26k in the hand, you actually have to earn 35k. And working people, out of that 26k also have to pay housing costs i.e rent/mortgage and CT themselves, so they probably end up having the same disposable income as those on benefits? In other words, take away the HB and CT benefits from claimants benefits, and take away housing cost and CT from workers and they both end up with the same amount in their pockets.

Personally, I'd do it region by region as obviously housing costs in London is far more expensive than in our area, I'd also limit the CT, CB and CTC to 2 kids. To me it seems daft to have more kids if you cannot afford to keep the ones you already have, and also expect the council to provide a bigger house. Common sense dictates surely, that if you are a bit "snug" in a flat or house with the family you have, the last thing you should do is have even more people there!

By the same token, they should also have a maximum wage cap as well, so the likes of CEO's and bankers don't get salaries that look like Lottery winnings!!

Ann thats the point.... nobody on benefits would actually have £26,000 in their hand. That amount would be made up to include HB & CB. If you take off the HB & CT and then also take that off workers , then the amount looks very different, or in fact very much the same, whic is the real issue here. When the politicians talk about the cap amount, they are including HB & CT, not excluding it.

[Deleted]

I Just wonder what the average benefit to families. I am aware that there are people/families getting over 26k, but surely that isn't the norm.

There are many families living hand to mouth, and those are the families who don't make the headlines.

[Banshee]

There is already a cap on HB. for example, my sister's rent in private renting sector is £700 a month. Now that is the cheapest in the area she lives in (shes not in London but in a coastal town further south) She is only allowed £600, so she has to pay an extra £25 p/w out her minimum amount that the governement say she has to live on, to top up th difference, so leaving her with £25 less than she is minimully supposed to live on. She has really tried to find somewhere cheaper and is willing to and wants to move to a cheaper place, but that is the cheapest she can find.
if you live in London, then a simple bedsit/studio flat is going to cost a minimum of £200 a WEEK, if you are lucky enough to find something that cheap. That is actually just £60 less than our MONTHLY mortgage here costs us. A simple 3 bed ex council house that owners are now letting in the area of London that I come from, will cost £325 p/w. So if you are privately renting in London, that is the amount that HB will need to cover. The tenant wont see that amount, it is paid direct the lanlord, but if you add it into the amount needed to live it looks like a large amount, and so this is what the politicians are talking aout. Surely the way forward is to cap rents, not benefits. If you tell people that they should move somewhere cheaper, then they have to move out, so what will London become then? An alternative ghetto of only the rich & super rich. With the real ghettos being in the m25 area, made up of people who were forced to move out.

[Ann1]

This is why I think they should do it region by region, rather than a blanket cap. But the real money spinner is kids!! This is what they need to get to grips with! If they limit CB and CTC to 2 kids, not only will it help overpopulation but also the taxpayer bill. I will don my tin hat now ;D but I don't see why people should get money just for having kids!

If you cannot, or are just, managing with what you have, who in their right mind would have more? And then expect the gov to cough up for them! I'm afraid that is one thing I cannot get to grips with. Surely plain old common sense would stop you having more, or does it not matter because someone else will pick up the tab?

[Banshee]

But I am probably one of those people you talk about Ann. I dont regret any of my kids or the circumstances they were born into because that was my mind set at the time. They are now adults and giving back to society, and though I was on benefits, I am now working and giving back. Such is the circle of life. lets stop looking at slagging peopleoff and punishing them through benefits and lets look at the positive of the giving back.

[Ann1]

That was then though Bansh, I know how old your kids are and I also know you wouldn't have got half of what they get now! I'm not saying this should be retrospective, but they can say "right 9/10 months from now (to allow for all those pregnant now) no money will be paid to any over 2 kids", it's then up to the people if they are willing to have more with no gov cash available. If they have even a modicum of sense, they'll think on and limit it to 2, in the full knowledge that if they have more, then they'll have to pay for them themselves without benefits of any sort.

The ones who get a real raw deal are singles with no kids!! They get nothing but JSA of 67 quid if your over 25! And now they will be forced to house share (under 35's) as that is all LHA will pay for!! House sharing might be fine for students, but if I'd been in my own place for years and then had to house share I'd go absolutely off it!!!

Imagine if you've been working since you were say 20, got a flat, always paid your rent, then at 30 you lose your job and have to apply for benefits. They then turn round and tell you, you either have to find the difference out of your 67 quid, or move to a shared place!!!

[Banshee]

Well exactly Ann. So the capping applies to everyone. its not fair on any of the people it will effect. So we shouldnt be talking about the differences between claimants but should be looking at the same effects for everyone.