MSE News: Benefits cap comes into force

paddedjohn

princessdon wrote: »

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?

These scavs are moaning that they are too fertile for contraception but what about him getting the snip, if hes allowed near a hospital with that hat on. Also she says they are spending £137 per month on storage, why cant they put that towards renting a bigger property privately somewhere.
They havnt worked in years but they still live in squalor, you would think they could spare 1/2 hour out of their hectic lifestyles to tidy up a bit.

Pair of scavving tramps.

skintmacflint

Heard on BBC breakfast yesterday George Osbourne is considering reducing the overall cap from 26,000 to £20,000 if it proves to be effective.

Not sure if it's a serious consideration or if it's just a political soundbite to test public reaction.

gettingready

clemmatis wrote: »

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.

Ermmmm sorry but on my previos salary of 1400 take home I was not able to claim anything at all yet a non working person was "entiled" to over 1500 per month?

Taking into consideration my travel to work costs, the single non working person getting 350 per week is around 250 per month better off that a single working person earning 1400 per month after tax.

zagfles

skintmacflint wrote: »

Heard on BBC breakfast yesterday George Osbourne is considering reducing the overall cap from 26,000 to £20,000 if it proves to be effective.

Not sure if it's a serious consideration or if it's just a political soundbite to test public reaction.

It's a political game. They'll probably promise to do it if they win the election.

The benefit cap and the child benefit withdrawal for "high" earners are stupid policy, there are far more sensible ways to reduce benefits or take money off higher earners in a fair and non-regressive way, but these are headline grabbing policies which even Sun readers can understand, and are massively popular. It's all about winning votes, not about coming up with a fair and sensible benefits system.

UC IMO is actually good policy (in general), but it's far to complicated for the average Sun reader type to understand and so have an opinion on. That's why they need simple headline grabbing policies like the cap and child benefit means test, to win votes and get the opposition onto the back foot.

Ben_Reeve-Lewis

Amid all the tub-thumping furore and outrage about people on benefits finally getting their come-uppance a couple of vital points are not being covered.

What happens to those people who are suddenly going to be £200 a week short and what happens to their landlords?

I work in homelessness and housing advice and for some time now I have been advising tenants whose landlords are not going to be continuing the letting because they know the cap is coming. Their search for alternative accommodation is proving equally fruitless as any new, prospective landlord also knows about the cap so they cant find anyone to take them on. Which means…..the homelessness and temporary accommodation bill is rising exponentially.

As for the landlords, well, last week I spoke to Mr A, who advised that he had a tenant whose housing benefit was always £12 a week short but she was a good tenant so he wasn’t bothered about the shortfall, however, when our council get hit by the cap on the 12th August she will be £240 a week short of the rent so he cant carry on. Trouble is she is under the fixed term until October, so even using the accelerated possession procedure it will be January or so before she has to get out, by which time she will be £7,000 in arrears and he wont be able to pay the mortgage on his single buy to let property.

Do people need to be re-educated about their income and liabilities? Probably, is introducing a benefit cap going to cause a culture change? No. All that is happening is that the benefit bill is getting pushed over to homelessness and in the meantime, for many landlords, pushing them over the edge. Its not just people on benefits who are affected and you the tax payer will end up paying even more.

gettingready

Shoot me if you like but why people who do not work/have no interntion to work insiste on living in expensive parts of say London or any other big city?

There ARE cheaper accomodation option that will fit with the "cap" - after lots of people commute to work for hours every day so someone with no job 9and no intention of getting one) has no real need to live in expensive part of any town.

240 per week short? :eek:

How much is the total weekely rent then?

Time to move somewhere they can afford to live or get a job and pay the rent themselves - sorry.

(waiting to be shot)

gettingready

re Homelesness - a friend of mine is currently homeless due to fire next door to her rented privately flat, the roof of her flat was affected and she can not move back in.

She gets no help at all, being pushed from pillar to post as she works.

Ben_Reeve-Lewis

No need to apologise for voicing an opinion, I certainly wont shoot you.

I have this argument with my missus everyday, she shares your views, as do many others so it is a familiar argument and my angle on this isn’t to disagree with you. Why should people who do nothing in return for their income get more help than I would when I spend all my working hours either saving people’s homes from repossession or training others how to do it?

That isn’t the point. The morality of the situation is neither here nor there. Its about the practicalities of it.

OK. Cut their benefits….why not? Make them appreciate that you don’t get owt for nowt. Then what? Who picks up the pieces? Who pays? We do.

A single mum with 4 kids is never going to be able to work because she cant afford the childcare. You could take the view that she shouldn’t have had the kids, you could also say “where is their dad in all this”? both valid questions but what happens then?

The law wont allow them to sleep on the street so if landlords wont rent to them where do they go? As I said above, the homelessness unit that’s where and who pays for the homelessness unit? We do.

All I ask when people voice this opinion is that they step aside from an outraged position and just look at it from a practical perspective. If benefit caps mean landlords wont rent to benefit tenants what then?

Of course you could take the view that they should move somewhere where the cap wont hit them but that is a very naïve and simplistic argument. A great debate stopper that denies a lot of inconvenient truths

gettingready

Practical perspective - practical from who's point of view?

Would people out of work have so many kids that they can not support if there was no benefits net to fall onto?

Contraception is free in UK.

I am sorry but I have zero sympathy for "sungle mothers" with multiple kids.

Widows/divorcees - bad luck, things happen.

But single mothers with no dad in the picture to help with financial support - immaculate conception?

Reactive approach is wrong. Proactive would be better. Warn people they will get no help if they put themselves in a worse position.

Nada666

clemmatis wrote: »

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.



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

They are quite free to rent any private sector property they like. And can easily afford to.