MSE News: Benefit cap has 'couple penalty'

wellynever

As a couple who are on benefits this as no affect on me even though we have two bedrooms.

hanlou007

26k......wow - give me some of that !!!
surely no one should get benefits more than what being in full time employment on the minimum wage pays.
so you go from benefits to min wage then move up the ladder and earn more etc.....
and there are jobs out there. my local Aldi has been advertising for 6 weeks paying over £9/hr.

people want too much for nothing and have relied on benefits for too long

FBaby

Benefits were put in place to help the most vulnerable people in this country - resulted in a few **** to use this as a lifestyle choice - resulted in others worse off thinking that if some can do it, so can they - resulted in an increase number of people on benefits who could be working but don't because they can get away with it - resulted in need to put a cap - will result in more people trying to fiddle the system and pretend not to be in a relationship - will result in tighter rules around what is acceptable relationship-wise under benefits - will result in some people having to move in together when they wouldn't have otherwise - will result in potentially more disfunctional families....

In the end, it all comes down to the same thing, people manipulating a system to benefit from it when it was really intented for them in the first place, but rules are such that they can't be challenged. Those people ruin things for those who trully deserve the support...

BigAunty

Nothing new in this - benefits have long been regarded as having a couples penalty which disincentivises some from living together and is thus more burdensome on the public purse.

The cap may make explicit this behaviour a bit more but there's absolutely nothing new in lone parents and/or their non resident partner from clinging onto their live apart status to maximise their income.

Mara69

Somerset wrote: »

I've read enough posts on here about partner's who don't live together but still have their benefits stopped because they are deemed to be a 'partner' and co-habit. What's the difference ? If 'he' lives there and 'she' lives there, won't the benefits people say it's an artifically contrived situation and they are not two separate households.

Below is one but there have been many similar.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3740867

I read that particular thread and it was quite clear that this couple spent ALL their time together. He slept at 'his' flat but that was all. He spent 'hardly any' time at his flat. He had a key for her home and she referred to him as her partner. Their friends and family considered them partners. I thought they were a couple in every sense of the word and were maximising her benefits and defrauding the benefits agency.

rickbonar

I remember Iain Duncan Smith in the last couple of years saying the benefit as it stands encouraged couples to live apart - which it does.

I'm staggered that this proposal will increase that as he correctly realised this before.

It is quite simple: people do what is best for them.

Therefore if a benefit cap is imposed at whatever level and as a couple they go over that then obviously they will split apart.
But then you will have two properties (funded by LHA or housing benefit too) actually costing overall more.

Now all this talk about £26,000........ You have got to remember that most of this is rent going to a landlord!

You've got to ask why are the rents so high?

It all comes back to why we are in an economic chaos with the banks ... yes overpriced houses.

The banks in America and UK were constantly on what they thought was a never ending gravy train fuelled by people borrowing initially on their wages but eventually all on whether their properties would go up in value. For nearly 10 years this gamble appeared to work but had already way beyond 3 times their income and the residue deposit just was the house you already own with some people upsizing or downsizing. Now we are locked in a state where no one will drop their prices and new buyers cannot buy.

A lot of capital generated from mortgages also went towards "investments" but the basic premise of banking that capital invested from savers went to fund mortgages was lost. (Bankers/speculators like Goodwin their just to get in and out quick fund their pension and to hell with everyone else).

Getting back to benefits ......... these "terrible" claimants will never own their own properties but they are making a very handsome living to the Lords ladies and Sirs and OBEs that own vast portfolios of properties which no doubt are increasing and are really the where your benefit tax is going.


My personal suggestion to IDS is why not pay couples more? And I mean more than 2 single people would collectively get..?

It would do the opposite ...........ie. Encourage couples to live together, not occupy 2 separate sets of accommodation which is where the real costs lie. Also with diminishing strain on the housing stocks the landlords would have to lower rents as there is less demand.

rotoguys

rickbonar wrote: »

I remember Iain Duncan Smith in the last couple of years saying the benefit as it stands encouraged couples to live apart - which it does.

I'm staggered that this proposal will increase that as he correctly realised this before.

It is quite simple: people do what is best for them.

Therefore if a benefit cap is imposed at whatever level and as a couple they go over that then obviously they will split apart.
But then you will have two properties (funded by LHA or housing benefit too) actually costing overall more.

Now all this talk about £26,000........ You have got to remember that most of this is rent going to a landlord!

You've got to ask why are the rents so high?

It all comes back to why we are in an economic chaos with the banks ... yes overpriced houses.

The banks in America and UK were constantly on what they thought was a never ending gravy train fuelled by people borrowing initially on their wages but eventually all on whether their properties would go up in value. For nearly 10 years this gamble appeared to work but had already way beyond 3 times their income and the residue deposit just was the house you already own with some people upsizing or downsizing. Now we are locked in a state where no one will drop their prices and new buyers cannot buy.

A lot of capital generated from mortgages also went towards "investments" but the basic premise of banking that capital invested from savers went to fund mortgages was lost. (Bankers/speculators like Goodwin their just to get in and out quick fund their pension and to hell with everyone else).

Getting back to benefits ......... these "terrible" claimants will never own their own properties but they are making a very handsome living to the Lords ladies and Sirs and OBEs that own vast portfolios of properties which no doubt are increasing and are really the where your benefit tax is going.


My personal suggestion to IDS is why not pay couples more? And I mean more than 2 single people would collectively get..?

It would do the opposite ...........ie. Encourage couples to live together, not occupy 2 separate sets of accommodation which is where the real costs lie. Also with diminishing strain on the housing stocks the landlords would have to lower rents as there is less demand.

Eight no nine years ago where I live there are 6 properties in a small culdesac. All were owned by the homeowner either with a mortgage or outright.

3 years ago, the first was sold - to a BTR landlord, then 6 months later another to the same landlord, and just 12 months ago a third was sold to another BTR landlord.

Now we have only 3 properties that are owner occupied. Another is coming to the market within the next couple of months which will no doubt be snapped up by another BTR landlord.

That will be 60% of what was private housing is now rental with all of the obvious problems that go with them. Gardens overgrown, rubbish, deterioration of the exterior paintwork and tenants that come and go every 6 months.

Something has to be done to stop these landlords buying cheap, and renting out to people at ridiculaous rents. 3 bed semi's £1100 a month!!!

Oldernotwiser

furndire wrote: »

Couples are already only entitled to rent for 1 bedroom properties if they need to claim rent after losing their jobs. Tough if they live in a 2 bedroom property.
If they live apart they can have 1 bedroom each - and medical grounds for needing 2 bedrooms are not taken into account.
Things are definitely going to get worse after April. People who already get their rents paid will only be affected if they have to make a new claim.

If they're over 35.

Your final point is untrue.

Oldernotwiser

rickbonar wrote: »

I remember Iain Duncan Smith in the last couple of years saying the benefit as it stands encouraged couples to live apart - which it does.

I'm staggered that this proposal will increase that as he correctly realised this before.

It is quite simple: people do what is best for them.

Therefore if a benefit cap is imposed at whatever level and as a couple they go over that then obviously they will split apart.
But then you will have two properties (funded by LHA or housing benefit too) actually costing overall more.

Now all this talk about £26,000........ You have got to remember that most of this is rent going to a landlord!

You've got to ask why are the rents so high?

It all comes back to why we are in an economic chaos with the banks ... yes overpriced houses.

The banks in America and UK were constantly on what they thought was a never ending gravy train fuelled by people borrowing initially on their wages but eventually all on whether their properties would go up in value. For nearly 10 years this gamble appeared to work but had already way beyond 3 times their income and the residue deposit just was the house you already own with some people upsizing or downsizing. Now we are locked in a state where no one will drop their prices and new buyers cannot buy.

A lot of capital generated from mortgages also went towards "investments" but the basic premise of banking that capital invested from savers went to fund mortgages was lost. (Bankers/speculators like Goodwin their just to get in and out quick fund their pension and to hell with everyone else).

Getting back to benefits ......... these "terrible" claimants will never own their own properties but they are making a very handsome living to the Lords ladies and Sirs and OBEs that own vast portfolios of properties which no doubt are increasing and are really the where your benefit tax is going.


My personal suggestion to IDS is why not pay couples more? And I mean more than 2 single people would collectively get..?

It would do the opposite ...........ie. Encourage couples to live together, not occupy 2 separate sets of accommodation which is where the real costs lie. Also with diminishing strain on the housing stocks the landlords would have to lower rents as there is less demand.

Rather unfortunate that they don't do what's best for the children, particularly when they get so much money for having them!

BigAunty

rickbonar wrote: »

...

Now all this talk about £26,000........ You have got to remember that most of this is rent going to a landlord!

.

I know the cap includes HB but I never understand all the wailing that 'it goes to the landlord', it's not like the tenant gets it, it's not in their pocket, etc.

They get accommodation, some in areas and of the size and type that working households cannot afford. They receive a tangible service for this money, even if it goes straight through their hands to a third party.

Their tax credits, child benefit, income support etc gets spent in supermarkets, clothes shops and so on but you never hear people say 'the problem with CB is that it gets spent on clothes...the problem with tax credits is that goes straight to British Gas, Asda and the corner shop'. etc