UK benefits cap starts today.

[brodski]

There must be a huge amount of housing benefit paid out in London. It is not a cappable benefit.

Thete is, which is why the benefits cap was first introduced in parts of London. Very, very few people outside London will be caught by it.

 

[The Don]

On the radio yesterday someone who was anti-cuts brought up the hypothetical of the single parent with six children. IIRC this person would only be able to claim £18 a week in housing benefit under the new scheme - certainly not enough to be able to afford any accommodation anywhere.

The pro-cuts person suggested that the sole parent of six could go out and get a part-time job but that pre-supposes that a suitable job exists, that the parent has the necessary skills and experience to get the job and that suitable child-care is both available and affordable.

Of course there aren't many single parents of six out there but the example illustrates how large families in particular will be very badly hit.

In other news, the measures are intended to save around £150m annually once the various hardship funds and discretionary waivers are taken into account. To put this in perspective, Thatcher's funeral will swallow up the first month's savings and the £1.5bn shortfall in 4G licence sale revenue would have paid for the savings for 10 years.

 

[brodski]

The government has been clear that this is not really about saving money, it's about a point of principle. I'm not entirely sure that this makes it any more acceptable to me.

 

[Nessie]

The government has been clear that this is not really about saving money, it's about a point of principle. I'm not entirely sure that this makes it any more acceptable to me.

I think it is about the money, the principle and that those who do go and find work, any work are the ones setting the example others have to follow. I know someone who was a manager who on being made redundant the first time worked as Santa in a shopping centre over Christmas and then as a painter and decorator. I know someone who had a business who then did cleaning work.

What is really lacking with many is you work and from that you find a better job. You do not sit around on benefits until something you fancy doing comes along.

 

[The Don]

I think it is about the money, the principle and that those who do go and find work, any work are the ones setting the example others have to follow. I know someone who was a manager who on being made redundant the first time worked as Santa in a shopping centre over Christmas and then as a painter and decorator. I know someone who had a business who then did cleaning work.

That's great for them but presumably they had skills that made them employable, a recent employment history, the means to get themselves to and from their place of employment and some way to have their children looked after while they are at work. They were also employment opportunities in the area.

What is really lacking with many is you work and from that you find a better job. You do not sit around on benefits until something you fancy doing comes along.

Well that's the view that the government is putting forward, the idea that there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people who are comparatively happy to be on benefits until the ideal opportunity comes along.

This may be true for some but many others are simply unable to find employment. Merely reducing their benefits will not make it any easier for them to find work.

 

[Nessie]

That's great for them but presumably they had skills that made them employable, a recent employment history, the means to get themselves to and from their place of employment and some way to have their children looked after while they are at work. They were also employment opportunities in the area.

]

I don't see this as being a plan to get people who due to behavioural problems, drug addictions and criminal pasts struggle to find and hold down jobs.

Well that's the view that the government is putting forward, the idea that there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people who are comparatively happy to be on benefits until the ideal opportunity comes along.

This may be true for some but many others are simply unable to find employment. Merely reducing their benefits will not make it any easier for them to find work.

Yes and limiting them to either £500 or £350 a week is not forcing them into gut wrenching poverty.

 

[funk de fino]

I am not saying it is not. I am saying that selling a poky hole in a run down part of London does not get you a mansion in Glasgow. In any case Glasgow as a city is very small, as a place including all the outer parts there are places where you will struggle to get a house for £660,000

An irrelevant anecdote that is seriously flawed?

 

[Toontown]

The important thing is not to worry about it. I'm sure you can all manage to muddle through on the luxurious benefits, capped though they may be. I know I could. I'm a bit of a spartan, but i could pay all the bills on time and catch a few movies on that.

But be careful that you do not sink into a bored, drugged funk while living the life of indolent ease. When receiving ludicrously generous government benefits for doing nothing, it is important to avoid the urge to riot.

Seriously. I saw a video of a British woman being run over by an entire troop of mounted police, moving at a fast trot. The horses were awesome. Every one of them managed to avoid stepping on the woman. It appeared that she was overcome with an urge to try to physically block the lead horse. That does not work. Horses are large and quite strong for their size. That's what caused her mild concussion. Bouncing off the horse's chest onto the pavement. I really can't complement the horses' footwork enough. They literally saved her life.

That was her brain on...hell, I don't know what would make a bitch try that. That was nuts.

So stay off the drugs, out of the angry, bored funks, and just roll with it. You've got it made. It doesn't get any better than this. This is the best of all possible monkeyballs. Has to be, or you wouldn't even exist.

Roll with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWptXUblA4E

 

[The Don]

I don't see this as being a plan to get people who due to behavioural problems, drug addictions and criminal pasts struggle to find and hold down jobs.

....and yet these are the ones who will be hardest hit because they will be the ones who won't be able to go out there and find a job so they can keep their housing benefit.

Yes and limiting them to either £500 or £350 a week is not forcing them into gut wrenching poverty.

Well it depends......

The way that the media is portraying the story is that the benefits recipients are getting that money in their pockets as disposable income. What is actually happening is that unless there are very unusual circumstances (live having a very large number of children) then the people who are in receipt of £350+ get a large proportion of that from housing benefit so it goes straight to their landlord.

As has been pointed out many times in this thread, renting property in South East England in general and in London in particular is very important. While it's feasible to find a 3-bed property to rent in most of the country for £500/month (here are a few in Newport ), in London it's a different matter. In Tower Hamlets (IIRC London's most deprived borough) it's more like £400 a week for a similar property.

 

[Nessie]

....and yet these are the ones who will be hardest hit because they will be the ones who won't be able to go out there and find a job so they can keep their housing benefit.

I was wrong above to say housing benefit is not capped. However, such people will be shielded with other benefits that are not capped, such as council tax benefit. But the bottom line for me is we ALL have to take a hit in this economic crisis. I just wish those who caused it were taking an even bigger hit.

Well it depends......

The way that the media is portraying the story is that the benefits recipients are getting that money in their pockets as disposable income. What is actually happening is that unless there are very unusual circumstances (live having a very large number of children) then the people who are in receipt of £350+ get a large proportion of that from housing benefit so it goes straight to their landlord.

As has been pointed out many times in this thread, renting property in South East England in general and in London in particular is very important. While it's feasible to find a 3-bed property to rent in most of the country for £500/month (here are a few in Newport ), in London it's a different matter. In Tower Hamlets (IIRC London's most deprived borough) it's more like £400 a week for a similar property.

Maybe they should have a London allowance whereby it is £600 and £450, rather than the universal limit as proposed.

 

[The Don]

Maybe they should have a London allowance whereby it is £600 and £450, rather than the universal limit as proposed.

There'd have to be several bands (London, home counties, cities, rural, poor areas and so on) which would make it much more difficult to administer because you have to keep track of what they are entitled to each week.

It also spoils the message (posturing is, after all, what it's all about).

IMO a more sensible approach would exclude housing benefit from a (much lower) limit but then again there would have to be controls over rents to avoid private landlord profiteering.

 

[Agatha]

It won't affect me as the disabled are exempt (not that it would even if I were not disabled, as I don't get anything like £500 a week even including housing benefit).

I think it's mostly political posturing - it makes good headlines but outside of a few people in London, are many families are actually being affected, and how much money will be saved?

Council tax benefit has been abolished from the end of March. It's council tax support given by local authorities now, and almost everyone who used to get full benefit will now have to pay some contribution because the support given by government to LAs. has massively reduced

I used to get full CTB but now have to pay £12 a month towards my council tax, which would not have seemed like a lot when I was working but now I'm living on benefits is going to be a real stretch to find it.

 

[brodski]

I was wrong above to say housing benefit is not capped. However, such people will be shielded with other benefits that are not capped, such as council tax benefit. But the bottom line for me is we ALL have to take a hit in this economic crisis. I just wish those who caused it were taking an even bigger hit.




Maybe they should have a London allowance whereby it is £600 and £450, rather than the universal limit as proposed.

If they had included a London weighing which was sufficient to allow hb to cover rent in london then so few people would have been captured by the cap that it's likely that the costs of introducing it would outweigh the savings.

 

[wishface]

People are moaning, but £500 per week (£26k a year) is a good income and for many households it will be more as they get benefits not used to calculate the cap. So I don't see what the moaners have to moan about, especially since many work and support families for less.

Then you don't understand the situation.

The large sums of money that the government likes to tout as the average scrounging family's claim is largley a smokescreen.

It doesn't address the reasons why these claims exist: high rents and, where they do exist, large families.

Instead scum like Osbourne would rather use the psychopathic act of manslauighter from one lunatic to tar all claimants.

This government is playing with people's lives and is quite happy for its rich landlord friends to continue raking it in.

 

[wishface]

I see an aim of this plan to make all people do at least some work and make life harder for those who see benefits as a lifestyle choice.

which is simply cruel sport as it is a purely ideological stance with nothing practical or sensible to back it up.

There is no such thing as a 'lifestyle choice'; people are dependent on money, in or out of work.

There are nowhere near enough jobs to go around nor will there ever be. The days of full employment are gone, thanks to the woman the public paid to bury this week.

Making life harder for people is simply cruelty.

Never mind the disgusting scrounging that goes on at the top (particularly from the likes of Hoban and IDS who is utterly unfit for his job, a bully and a liar).

 

[wishface]

The important thing is not to worry about it. I'm sure you can all manage to muddle through on the luxurious benefits, capped though they may be. I know I could. I'm a bit of a spartan, but i could pay all the bills on time and catch a few movies on that.

If you think benefits are generous; you are an idiot.

 

[Toontown]

If you think benefits are generous; you are an idiot.

If you think they're not, you are quite the little pampered one. I live quite well on less.

To make it clear, yes I do think the benefits are generous. Now you make it clear: do you think I'm an idiot? Go ahead and just say it. Try to say it in a way that will make me really care that you think I'm an idiot.

 

[funk de fino]

If you think they're not, you are quite the little pampered one. I live quite well on less.

To make it clear, yes I do think the benefits are generous. Now you make it clear: do you think I'm an idiot? Go ahead and just say it. Try to say it in a way that will make me really care that you think I'm an idiot.

Less than what?

 

[Toontown]

Less than what?

Less than 534 USD per week, which is the USD equivalent of 350 BP.

I could live like a king on 534 USD, and my savings account would still grow like Topsy.

It's not what you make, it's what you spend and how you spend it.

 

[funk de fino]

Less than 534 USD per week, which is the USD equivalent of 350 BP.

I could live like a king on 534 USD, and my savings account would still grow like Topsy.

It's not what you make, it's what you spend and how you spend it.

Who gets £350 a week? I didn't when I was on the social.

I guess basements are quite cheap places to bunk up right enough.