Local Council Tax Support

princessdon

jobdone1 wrote: »

PATRONISING then you should be more clear with you comments

Maybe you should read up on policies before you jump in with insults?

At the moment benefits passport full CTB. This can often lead to people with higher levels of benefits than those who work (net result) paying nothing and yes as you rightly say the "working poor" paying their share.

This addresses the issue.

For Example - My LA is deducting childcare from the Tax Credits (Tax credits are income) as they don't really get those Tax Credits, the childcare giver does.

I see the above post by the OP as a very balanced post.

For far too long workers on a low wage who get up early, do valid and often hard work, standing in the rain at 6am waiting for a bus have been propping up benefit claimants.

I like the idea of tapering the benefit according to length of time unemployed too. Personally I'd like a 6 mos grace, so those losing their job have 6 mos to find another one, but sadly not many share this view.

BigAunty

hereigoagain22 wrote: »

...

He is moving into a 2 bedroom properly shortly with his only income as JSA. The reason for choosing a 2 bedroom property is because he has 2 children with his ex-partner and he would like to care for them 2/3 days per week. ...

This leaves him with £21.90 per week to feed and clothe himself. He could also be liability to pay a little child maintenance (not sure how much it is) and is supposed to provide for the children on the 2/3 days they live with him. Are they supposed to eat bread and water?

I am totally sympathetic to his predicament so this is more devil's advocacy.

In the private sector, tenants without primary care of the children have not been able to get a Local Housing Allowance rate to take into account for partly visiting children, so unless they can top up the rent, chances are that their only option is to have a 1 bed and sleep on the sofa while their children visit.

Indeed, those private tenants under the age of 35 can only qualify for the shared accommodation rate so might not even manage to afford the size of property to host any kind of visit.

If the now separated parents could both claim HB at rates that included their children despite the children only being there 50% of the time, then the benefit bill and number of unoccupied rooms would be even more enormous than it is now - there are at least 660,000 empty rooms in the social housing sector and that's just 7% of the housing stock.

AFAIK, child maintenance is capped at about a fiver a week for those on benefits. Those with employment income have the contribution reduced if the children stay there overnight. There's nothing to stop him asking the parent with care (who may get tax credits, full HB, child benefit, full council tax benefit, employment income) from helping their children out by paying towards their visiting expenses. They could make a private arrangement for this. This is a parental matter, not a state matter.

But I do accept your points, and I am sympathetic, but this is the type of argument against extending HB to parents who no longer live together and to mitigate the hardship of the poorer one for the sake of the kids.

princessdon

hereigoagain22 wrote: »

A friend of mine gets £71 a week JSA. He is in his thirties and has never claimed benefits in his life, he went to uni from school to study engineering and also qualified in welding & fabricating. By no means a lazy person.

He was made redundant last September, he applies for every single job he could do including supermarkets, shops etc. (so not just picking and choosing jobs). He has only had a few interviews and has been turned down for everything else.

He is moving into a 2 bedroom properly shortly with his only income as JSA. The reason for choosing a 2 bedroom property is because he has 2 children with his ex-partner and he would like to care for them 2/3 days per week. So when the new rules come in his income and outgoings will be -

£71.00 JSA weekly
£60.20 Housing Benefit weekly (£70 full benefit minus 14%)
£9.08 Council Tax Benefit (Band B Council Tax minus 25% SPD then 10%)
Total Income = £140.28 weekly

Outgoings
£70 Rent
£3.50 "Service charge" from Council for flat
£10.09 Council Tax (yearly amount £699.33 minus 25% SPD)
£3.79 Water & Waste Water (yearly charge £262.38 minus 25% single person discount)
£20 Electricity
£11 weekly bus ticket for shopping, job centre and interviews (equivalent to 3 days travel)

This leaves him with £21.90 per week to feed and clothe himself. He could also be liability to pay a little child maintenance (not sure how much it is) and is supposed to provide for the children on the 2/3 days they live with him. Are they supposed to eat bread and water? He is homeless and has no family to support him. I think that is an disgusting amount for a government to expect a person to live on.

We live in a very cheap area (as you can see from the rent and Council Tax figures) and I expect the figure will be much worse for a seperated Dad who has lost his job in other areas.

In all honesty he can sleep on the sofa and give up his bed to his children, many parents do. He can ask his ex for some money (I know if I was in that position I would happily so my children were better housed).

Finally, has someone looked at his CV? It seems very unusual that someone with that education, field of expertise and job history cannot get interviews. That isn't a criticism. My OH is very talented, very good at his job but rubbish at selling himself and doing his CV, I do this for him.

jobdone1

princessdon wrote: »

Maybe you should read up on policies before you jump in with insults?

At the moment benefits passport full CTB. This can often lead to people with higher levels of benefits than those who work (net result) paying nothing and yes as you rightly say the "working poor" paying their share.



This addresses the issue.

For Example - My LA is deducting childcare from the Tax Credits (Tax credits are income) as they don't really get those Tax Credits, the childcare giver does.

I see the above post by the OP as a very balanced post.

For far too long workers on a low wage who get up early, do valid and often hard work, standing in the rain at 6am waiting for a bus have been propping up benefit claimants.

I like the idea of tapering the benefit according to length of time unemployed too. Personally I'd like a 6 mos grace, so those losing their job have 6 mos to find another one, but sadly not many share this view.

How dare you say I am insulting. all walks of life have a right to food and housing pushing more and more people into poverty whilst bankers get massive bonuses is very wrong

princessdon

jobdone1 wrote: »

How dare you say I am insulting. all walks of life have a right to food and housing pushing more and more people into poverty whilst bankers get massive bonuses is very wrong

You are clearly out of touch my chicken

Not patronising or insulting?

I don't mind bankers or executives getting performance related bonuses. None performance, yes shouldn't happen but any individual who meets and exceeds targets is entitled to a percentage of that gain.

jobdone1

princessdon wrote: »

You are clearly out of touch my chicken

Not patronising or insulting?

I don't mind bankers or executives getting performance related bonuses. None performance, yes shouldn't happen but any individual who meets and exceeds targets is entitled to a percentage of that gain.

In your view I may be out of touch, But I hold my head high and proud that I have paid tax and national insurance for the last twenty years and I know from this I have helped people in this country that need a little support towards the cost of living with the help of my contributions. If the big guns want to peg wages back and the government not introduce a living wage then they have themselves to blame for the rising benefit bill.

Own_My_Own

jobdone1 wrote: »

In your view I may be out of touch, But I hold my head high and proud that I have paid tax and national insurance for the last twenty years and I know from this I have helped people in this country that need a little support towards the cost of living with the help of my contributions. If the big guns want to peg wages back and the government not introduce a living wage then they have themselves to blame for the rising benefit bill.

Princessdon was not calling you out of touch. You asked her where you were patronising, and she was showing you . The 'you are clearly out of touch my chicken' was your quote, not hers.

Own_My_Own

Brentwood in Essex today said that people in houses with banding F,G or H will no longer get ANY COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT.

http://www.brentwood.gov.uk/index.php?cid=2148

he proposed key changes for working age people are:
Reducing the in-work taper to 15% for those working more than 24 hours per week, with support assessed on 100% liability and not 80% to help make work pay
Abolishing non dependant deductions to encourage families to stay together
Reducing the Capital Limit from £16,000 to £6,000
Restricting entitlement for Band E properties to that of a Band D council tax charge
Ending support for residents in Band F, G and H properties
Asking everyone except the severely disabled and some veterans to pay at least 20%
Using Child Benefit and Maintenance in the assessment on the same basis it was used in 2008
Introducing a 13 week protection for those who over the last year have been able to afford their Council Tax but whose circumstances have changed.
Removing support for claimants under the age of 25. (except for exceptional hardship cases)

This will hit some families very hard.

The council tax for these houses ranges from £2,100 - £3,000

Council Tax Bands 2012/2013

http://www.brentwood.gov.uk/index.php?cid=2120

BigAunty

Own_My_Own wrote: »

...
Abolishing non dependant deductions to encourage families to stay together

I've heard of councils abolishing discounts for properties of certain bands and above. That shocked me when I first heard about it because it seems so arbitrary (which I guess a lot of the new rules are).

It doesn't take into account the actual day to day income of the owners or tenants in high cost properties. I know the logic must be that they are somehow wealthy but if they qualify for income related benefits or are on the state pension or similar, that's hell of a chunk of income to lose on CT. In order to cut costs, they've got to sell their properties so that's quite a harsh consequence.

The decision to abolish non-dependent deductions mystifies me. I wonder how much revenue that the council generates this way or if it is so low, that's why they've been prepared to sacrifice it, so they look as if they are giving back and its somehow good PR?

I mean, realistically, how many grown up sons and daughters decide to incurr the extra costs of leaving the family home and going into rented accommodation because their parents get a modest deduction from their CT/HB if their children are earning? The sums deducted are always small and must be much cheaper than local market rents.

It's a fairly normal activity for grown up kids to pay towards their keep and I can't see how the NDD is supposed to lead to family breakups! (Although we do sometimes see posts on here from parents or their children who are annoyed at NDDs so maybe sharing household costs is a habit that is dying out and resented...?!)

Own_My_Own

BigAunty wrote: »

I've heard of councils abolishing discounts for properties of certain bands and above. That shocked me when I first heard about it because it seems so arbitrary (which I guess a lot of the new rules are).

It doesn't take into account the actual day to day income of the owners or tenants in high cost properties. I know the logic must be that they are somehow wealthy but if they qualify for income related benefits or are on the state pension or similar, that's hell of a chunk of income to lose on CT. In order to cut costs, they've got to sell their properties so that's quite a harsh consequence.

The decision to abolish non-dependent deductions mystifies me. I wonder how much revenue that the council generates this way or if it is so low, that's why they've been prepared to sacrifice it, so they look as if they are giving back and its somehow good PR?

I mean, realistically, how many grown up sons and daughters decide to incurr the extra costs of leaving the family home and going into rented accommodation because their parents get a modest deduction from their CT/HB if their children are earning? The sums deducted are always small and must be much cheaper than local market rents.

It's a fairly normal activity for grown up kids to pay towards their keep and I can't see how the NDD is supposed to lead to family breakups! (Although we do sometimes see posts on here from parents or their children who are annoyed at NDDs so maybe sharing household costs is a habit that is dying out and resented...?!)

They may have a high number of single parents on benefits. When the oldest child leaves education, the parent not only loses all the income benefits for that child/young adult, but also the 25% CTB deduction for being the only adult in the home. Having to pay more than that on top may make some not so Good parents ask they child to leave.