What's the fuss about this new benefit caps?

lisyloo

And loads of rich people pensioners getting a free TV licence, winter fuel allowance, state pension etc etc. Lots of dual earners on 50k each getting child benefit when a single earner of 60k does not. Loads of people who's kids get free state education or who use the NHS even though they could afford to pay. How do you decide which state benefits it is 'right' to claim and which it is 'wrong'?

All of those you state above are intended for the recipients.
I'd say there is a difference between tat and what you are doing, which is manipulating your (paper) circumstances to receive the benefit.
Some people (and organisations) manipulate their actual circumstances e.g. sell a DVD on ebay to be "self-employed" or work 16 hours per week.

So I'd say there is a difference between the what is intended and manipulation.

I don't blame anyone doing the best for their own family though.

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

I do accept you can't cover ever eventuality although you can certainly make sure you aren't penniless on day 1.

I don't believe that means that no-one should plan for anything at all and just fall at the mercy of the state.
Personally I want more for my family than the safety net that's offered.

I think most sensible people would agree with you but things happen that can't be foreseen and peoples circumstances can change after they have children.

stator

kinger101 wrote: »

What did Labour do to stop this in the 13 years they were in power?

Of course the Thatcherite governments of Blaire and Brown are equally to blame.

bloolagoon

The cap doesn't affect those who lose their job immediately. As long as someone was employed the prior year they get 9 months cap free. So a sudden job loss of regular employed aren't affected.

Same with illness -

If anyone in the household is on ESA SG or DLA they are also not affected.

Outside the cap (in addition to the 20k) are free school meals, utilbury grants, council tax, free prescriotions and other schemes.

remorseless

Physics wrote: »

Do France, Germany, Holland and (about as EU as we are) the Scandanavian countries not have a social-security/child benefit system? I didn't realise.

Certainly I imagine Spain, Italy and Greece might not, but they are not really economically comparable.

Most families do receive some financial benefits. But it tends to be means tested.

Edit: As for how the rest of the world does it, you tell me! Do poor people in Africa have kids? Do rich people? There is almost no 'benefits system' there, and the wealth disparity even greater. How do you think the life expectations of a child from a poor family compare to those of from a rich one? Should we emulate this disparity, or turn away from it?

Oh dear... you are right, you really cannot compare. Maybe has to do with culture... maybe education, maybe expectation!

I suppose we shall see as more and more benefits are cut, those who have planned will be little impacted!

Generali

Physics wrote: »

Do France, Germany, Holland and (about as EU as we are) the Scandanavian countries not have a social-security/child benefit system? I didn't realise.

Certainly I imagine Spain, Italy and Greece might not, but they are not really economically comparable.

Most families do receive some financial benefits. But it tends to be means tested.

Edit: As for how the rest of the world does it, you tell me! Do poor people in Africa have kids? Do rich people? There is almost no 'benefits system' there, and the wealth disparity even greater. How do you think the life expectations of a child from a poor family compare to those of from a rich one? Should we emulate this disparity, or turn away from it?

Why isn't Italy comparable to the UK? GDP per head is similar, economic activity is largely centred around Rome and the Northern regions (read London and the South), both are big exporters and importers, both have large, sophisticated manufacturing sectors.

I'd say Italy is a lot like the UK economically speaking.

Physics

Generali wrote: »

I'd say Italy is a lot like the UK economically speaking.

Yeah, checking the figures you're probably right.

remorseless

Generali wrote: »

I'd say Italy is a lot like the UK economically speaking.

it seems that you need to earn EUR 14.383,37 as a dual parent family with 2 kids to be eligible for benefit for the 3rd child.
You get a whopping EUR 137.50 a month.
If you are a single parent, you get the same amount on the min amount for the second child too.
First child seems to be yours to look after!

You seem to stop receiving any benefit for the 3rd child once you earn more than EUR 70.996,27...

It seems to imply families have to be in work to get any assistance

michaels

lisyloo wrote: »

All of those you state above are intended for the recipients.
I'd say there is a difference between tat and what you are doing, which is manipulating your (paper) circumstances to receive the benefit.
Some people (and organisations) manipulate their actual circumstances e.g. sell a DVD on ebay to be "self-employed" or work 16 hours per week.

So I'd say there is a difference between the what is intended and manipulation.

I don't blame anyone doing the best for their own family though.

Once you have to start working out 'what parliament intended when they set the rules' though it all becomes questions of judgement and opinion. Was it originally intended when the NHS was set up that those rich enough to pay for their own health care should use the service? I ceertainly wasn't around at the time so have no idea what was expected to happen - perhaps it was supposed that those who at the time used private provision would continue to do so?

Physics

remorseless wrote: »

I suppose we shall see as more and more benefits are cut, those who have planned will be little impacted!

A strangely sanctimonious response, given you said "apologies in advance if it sounds rude, I am *really* trying to understand". Because here I am explaining a bunch of reasons why previous governments have made these decisions, without arguing if it's right or wrong, in practice or in principle.