MSE News: Benefits cap comes into force

rizla_king

woodbine wrote: »

but if we the members do this our post get moved...simple point

Yes, but it's their forum so they can do whatever the hell they like, even if it would be against the rules for a normal user.

clemmatis

gettingready wrote: »

Yes and?

And, the child benefits and housing benefit can be claimed by people in work too

And, just 44,000 households (out of millions) are affected by the cap

Everyone who works pays rent/mortgage too

And, not only can the child and housing benefits be claimed by people in work too, but if they claim working tax credit as well they won't be subject to the cap (rightly, of course).

(yes, I am in a better job now and changing for even better soon but this is not the point - the point is benefits should always be lower than the lowest salary, it is basic maths)

That isn't any kind of maths, it's a policy statement. Anyway; didn't the government say the cap (and universal credit) would make sure people would always be better off in work? I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn they've got their maths wrong, though.

zagfles

clemmatis wrote: »

That isn't any kind of maths, it's a policy statement. Anyway; didn't the government say the cap (and universal credit) would make sure people would always be better off in work? I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn they've got their maths wrong, though.

In general both will improve incentives to work, UC will create a bigger gap between those in work and those on benefits because of the higher disregards and lower taper, and the benefit cap will make a big difference to those affected (which as you say isn't that many - mainly people with high housing costs & lots of kids etc) since they won't be affected if they work the required hours.

But there are exceptions - the main one being those who get SMI (mortgage interest help), since they are keeping the cliff-edge rather than tapering it - you can be worse off getting a job if you get SMI.

UC will also be a bit of a shock to those with unearned income, as there's no disregard or taper.

gettingready

clemmatis wrote: »

And, the child benefits and housing benefit can be claimed by people in work too

And, just 44,000 households (out of millions) are affected by the cap



And, not only can the child and housing benefits be claimed by people in work too, but if they claim working tax credit as well they won't be subject to the cap (rightly, of course).




That isn't any kind of maths, it's a policy statement. Anyway; didn't the government say the cap (and universal credit) would make sure people would always be better off in work? I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn they've got their maths wrong, though.

Sorry but which part of my calculations/comparison for SINGLE person did you miss that you keep on mentioning children?

princessdon

Post on DT today, family with 6 children (so 18k CTC alone), more to come as she's highly fertile, living in a 1 bedroom - yes 1 bedroom with 8 of them affected by the cap. Neither worked a day since child 1 born 8 years ago as she's to ill, so he needs to look after children. Living in filth and squalor (not just lack of storage, but filth).

What do we do with them?

They are wanting a 4 bed council house built for their needs.

Minority - certainly - real though and plenty like them who have large families without a thought as to the children and expect tax payers to foot the bill. Would any "normal" parent have 6 children in a 1 bed flat?

You need at times to realise why they do this, even if a minority, its wrong.

Those children have little Real in their lives, they can't cook, eat as a family, have a normal life with 8 in a 1 bed flat, so why keep having them?

princessdon

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2365312/Jobless-couple-claim-27-000-year-benefits-want-new-council-house-theyve-SIX-children-accident-living-bedroom-flat.html

Link for those who haven't seen it


Ps yes I did point out that carers uniform hanging up in picture 1 (why if unemployed) but benefit cheats don't exist do they?

gettingready

princessdon wrote: »

Post on DT today, family with 6 children (so 18k CTC alone), more to come as she's highly fertile, living in a 1 bedroom - yes 1 bedroom with 8 of them affected by the cap. Neither worked a day since child 1 born 8 years ago as she's to ill, so he needs to look after children. Living in filth and squalor (not just lack of storage, but filth).

What do we do with them?

Sterilise - both.

clemmatis

gettingready wrote: »

Sorry but which part of my calculations/comparison for SINGLE person did you miss that you keep on mentioning children?

Actually the same point applies: a low paid SINGLE person with no children can claim the same benefits, child benefits obviously excluded, as a SINGLE person who is not employed.

clemmatis

zagfles wrote: »

In general both will improve incentives to work, UC will create a bigger gap between those in work and those on benefits because of the higher disregards and lower taper, and the benefit cap will make a big difference to those affected (which as you say isn't that many - mainly people with high housing costs & lots of kids etc) since they won't be affected if they work the required hours.

But there are exceptions - the main one being those who get SMI (mortgage interest help), since they are keeping the cliff-edge rather than tapering it - you can be worse off getting a job if you get SMI.

UC will also be a bit of a shock to those with unearned income, as there's no disregard or taper.

Thanks. I'd read some working people would be worse off on UC, but didn't know why.

clemmatis

princessdon wrote: »

Post on DT today, family with 6 children (so 18k CTC alone), more to come as she's highly fertile, living in a 1 bedroom - yes 1 bedroom with 8 of them affected by the cap. Neither worked a day since child 1 born 8 years ago as she's to ill, so he needs to look after children. Living in filth and squalor (not just lack of storage, but filth).

What do we do with them?

They are wanting a 4 bed council house built for their needs.

WRONG. They tried to bid on three-bedroomed houses but aren't allowed to (perhaps the Daily Mail didn't say that). They are only allowed to bid on four-bedroomed ones.

Ps yes I did point out that carers uniform hanging up in picture 1

and people pointed out to you that it might not be a carer's uniform.