MSE News: Benefits cap comes into force

Morlock

zagfles wrote: »

The base amounts are the same.

No, they aren't the same as most other household income is not included. Benefit entitlement often ends when a contributions-based benefit period finishes, there would be no benefit entitlement if claiming income-based equivalents.

It is misleading to state that contributions-based and income-based benefits are exactly the same, they are not. A contributions-based claim often entitles the claimant to benefits, or more of the same benefit, which would not be received if the claim was income-based.

Plus income based JSA passports you to some additional benefits which contribution based doesn't.

And vice-versa.

gettingready

Rent controls need to be enforced, not housing benefit cut.

Rent controls need to be enforced AND all benefits (including HB for people who never worked/never plan to work) cut to below equivalent of NMW.

gettingready

Morlock wrote: »

No, they aren't the same as most other household income is not included. Benefit entitlement often ends when a contributions-based benefit period finishes, there would be no benefit entitlement if claiming income-based equivalents.

It is misleading to state that contributions-based and income-based benefits are exactly the same, they are not. A contributions-based claim often entitles the claimant to benefits, or more of the same benefit, which would not be received if the claim was income-based.



And vice-versa.

The amount a person gets is the same. Regardless if this is income on contribution based. The amount received is exacly the same PLUS "income based" allows free perscriptions/dentist when contribution based does not.

You either do not undersnad or are very very confused.

Again - the cash amount one gets as JSA is the same regardless of the fact if that person worked `10 years non stop or never worked one day.

Witch_Hazel

gettingready wrote: »

Widows/divorcees - bad luck, things happen.

I understand that you are upset with the system, but I find this comment rather tasteless.

Morlock

gettingready wrote: »

The amount a person gets is the same. Regardless if this is income on contribution based. The amount received is exacly the same PLUS "income based" allows free perscriptions/dentist when contribution based does not.

You either do not undersnad or are very very confused.

Again - the cash amount one gets as JSA is the same regardless of the fact if that person worked `10 years non stop or never worked one day.

Yes, I understand that CB-JSA and IB-JSA are both £71.70 per week, but if one person receives £71.70 and another doesn't, the amount received is not the same. You are simplifying it too much by stating there is no advantage to receiving CB-JSA, when in many cases there is a distinct advantage, and each case can vary so much.

gettingready

Witch_Hazel wrote: »

I understand that you are upset with the system, but I find this comment rather tasteless.

Because you probably misunderstood my post.

Widows, divorcees - bad things, unplanned things happen and by all means they should be helped.

Single mothers with xxx kids - that is their irresponsibility/their choice so very different.

gettingready

Morlock wrote: »

Yes, I understand that CB-JSA and IB-JSA are both £71.70 per week,

Exactly

Morlock wrote: »

but if one person receives £71.70 and another doesn't, the amount received is not the same.

I am copmaring 2 people that do both receive the same amount regardless of the fact that one may have been working for years and the other never done a day work.

Morlock wrote: »

You are simplifying it too much

Because it is that simple.

Morlock wrote: »

by stating there is no advantage to receiving CB-JSA, when in many cases there is a distinct advantage, and each case can vary so much.

What advantages are there with CB JSA that IB JSA does not give?

It is IB JSA that gives free optician/dentist/prescription. What does CB give more than IB does?

CB should be wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy higher that IB, sorry.

Again, benefits should never ever give a person more money than another person has to work for all month.

Yes I simplify - because it is that simple.

Dunroamin

Morlock wrote: »

Any single, unemployed person receiving £350 per week in benefits would need to be paying rent of around £280 per week, which is not an unusually high rent in the South East for a one-bedroom property. Rent controls should be enforced, not benefits cut.

I'm from the SE and £280 pw is a very high rent for a 1 bed flat . As examples, it's over double the LHA rate for Windsor, St Albans and Oxford (all very expensive areas) and even £25 pw more than the rate in Central London.

speedfreek1000

rogerblack wrote: »

To clarify People who are on ESA - but not in the support group - are affected, if they do not also receive DLA/PIP.
So, if you are on ESA, in the work-related group, and you may be affected, but have not tried to claim PIP - consider it.

Plus - you just have to be entitled to working tax credit to be exempt - not to claim it.
FAQ from the DWP on the cap is here:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/benefit-cap-faqs.pdf


More information about PIP - https://www.gov.uk/pip/overview


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3783983/Benefit%20Limits%20and%20Housing%20Affordability%20for%20Private%20Tenants.pdf is a detailed paper, going into the effects per area.
This cap bites only really on areas with high housing cost.
The 'headline grabbing' propaganda about people with large numbers of children is basically that. Few people are affected solely due to that.
Though in high housing cost areas of the country, even people with one child can be affected.

You've missed off the effect this will have on supported and emergency accommodation no matter what the area.

Let's look at people escaping domestic violence

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/core/core_picker/download.asp?id=3853

Well she/he should have learned the fist time she was beaten to a bloody pulp by a violent partner and ended up in A&E. Even more so if their partner is abusing or trying to kill the children.

The same applies for specialist supported accommodation for the homeless, disabled and ex offenders.

All is expensive but vital to those who need it. Now it's gone because 10 people in the whole country have had 6 + kids on benefits. :rotfl:

zagfles

Morlock wrote: »

No, they aren't the same as most other household income is not included. Benefit entitlement often ends when a contributions-based benefit period finishes, there would be no benefit entitlement if claiming income-based equivalents.

It is misleading to state that contributions-based and income-based benefits are exactly the same, they are not. A contributions-based claim often entitles the claimant to benefits, or more of the same benefit, which would not be received if the claim was income-based.

OK let's make it simple. If someone has no other income (other than HB/CTC etc), and capital under £6k, then the amount they get in JSA is exactly the same whether or not they have a contribution record.

In some cases, having a contribution record can mean they get less in other benefits (tax credits, for instance, where getting income based JSA passports you onto max CTC, whereas contribution based JSA only doesn't)

Plus income based JSA passports you to some additional benefits which contribution based doesn't.

And vice-versa.

Really? What benefits do you get passported onto with contribution based JSA that you don't with income based?