Housing Benefit capped at £400 a week!

debrag

Inner Lewisham will have to come down by £4.72.

poppysarah

Henry_P_Chester wrote: »

Is that a joke?!

https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/Secure/LHARateSearch.aspx?SearchType=PostCode

Type in w1 1aa

Bullfighter

Should be £1,000pcm maximum. Full stop.

If you can't keep your legs closed or this isn't high enough to live in your preferred area then.... you have to live in a smaller place or relocate to a cheaper area.

Should save another few billion a year....

useless

skintandsad wrote: »

Last time I checked, there were only two different types of kids, the boy type, and the girl type.

Nowt wrong with boys sharing with other boys, surely ??? (and of course the same for girls)

Perhaps a lack of housing in the areas concerned forces the local authorities to rent privately at extreme prices?

Anyhow, with the new "maximum housing benefit" policy, this would stop this, I suppose?

Is a 4 bed the maximum size house allowed? As this policy of £400 per week is in relation to 4 bed houses.

unless you get the boy/girl type.

When_is_the_reset?

We have two children. We both work and manage to pay our way.

Two doors down they have two kids. They cannot manage to work and cannot pay their way.

But they have exactly the same house as us - how can that be?

Surely they should have a lower standard of living rather than expect to match the average? Where is the incentive?

Wee_Willy_Harris

When_is_the_reset? wrote: »

We have two children. We both work and manage to pay our way.

Two doors down they have two kids. They cannot manage to work and cannot pay their way.

But they have exactly the same house as us - how can that be?

Surely they should have a lower standard of living rather than expect to match the average? Where is the incentive?

Maybe YOU should aspire to higher than average?

puddy

because when the welfare state was developed, it was decided that it was based on need, not on ability to pay/incentive to work. we have a need based welfare state, if the public want a different type of welfare state, one that rewards those who can work/are intelligent/whatever, then they should make representation to their mp, but for now, the welfare state is not set up for that purpose, it never was

When_is_the_reset?

Maybe YOU are just being strange.

It is strange to suggest that being on the dole is to become average and therefore the norm.

C_Mababejive

IMHO that figure is far too generous and there should be regionally adjusted maximums.

ILW

jenner wrote: »

because when the welfare state was developed, it was decided that it was based on need, not on ability to pay/incentive to work. we have a need based welfare state, if the public want a different type of welfare state, one that rewards those who can work/are intelligent/whatever, then they should make representation to their mp, but for now, the welfare state is not set up for that purpose, it never was

A family do not "need" to live in a average property. By definition half of the population in any area live in below average. Why should claiments get better than roughly 50% of the people is a given area.