What's the fuss about this new benefit caps?

remorseless

lisyloo wrote: »

But if a person falls on hard times - let's say womanand kids get abandoned, then often it makes sense to pay their mortgage short term (interest only no capital) rather than turf them out and have to pay a higher rent.

I was thinking something a bit more severe, car accident, terminal cancer, etc.

If a woman and kids get abandoned, tough luck, she better find a job and have a family to assist her.

in 2012, in the England and Wales, the divorce rate was 42%!!!!!!

It's easier to assume that, I got abandoned with kids, the state will pay for me, then she will need benefit cause she needs to care for the kids, the for the kids school, then cause they cannot share the same room, when do you stop it?
This is only encouraging others not to plan for the worse and take the easy way out cause there is little accountability.

lisyloo wrote: »

If we had dozens of empty council hosues ready for them to go in then perhaps that might be an idea, but we know that is not the case and they would end up on housing benefit which would in a lot of cases be a higher cost.

I don't understand (really, seriously) why SO many expect social housing! Why are there so many?? If someone can't afford a big house, stop making kids. Let them share a room, bathroom, travel an hour to school.

I don't understand the cushioning people expect in life! Has it always been this way??

Physics

This is mostly child associated benefits, right? Child tax credits and benefits?

I believe the principle is that kids from poor backgrounds shouldn't be any more disadvantaged than they already are.

For example:

ggb1979 wrote:

If I was allowed to keep that tax i pay to fund your lifestyle I could maybe afford better tuition for my son who is struggling at school due to some minor learning difficulties.

Sorry your son is having trouble at school, ggb1979. A lot of people would like to be able to get their kids private tutoring, but few can afford it. But imagine if we did as you suggested, and gave everyone paying all this tax back, to pay for tuition. The children of low earners would be worse off, and the children of high earners would all get private tuition. What would this do to the country? I don't know, but I can speculate.

This is already a part of life: kids from poor backgrounds have all sorts of disadvantages. We can't eliminate all of them. But the idea is that child benefit goes some way toward mitigating it.

That's the principle.

Of course, you can disagree with the the principle (maybe we should just suck it up, cancel child benefit, and accept poor kids will be even more disadvantaged than they are now). You can disagree with how it works in practice (are the recipients of child benefit more irresponsible than non-recipients? Do they squander their income more than other parents do? Do they have kids just for the benefits, making the more likely to be bad parents?). But that's the the rough idea behind it.

michaels

Oops - forgot - on top of the 13.6k tax credits we also get 2.4k child benefit. We don't live in London, don't get any housing or council tax benefit or free school meals and yet we are only 4k short of the 20k limit.

Physics

remorseless wrote: »

If someone can't afford a big house, stop making kids.

Well, indeed. I think we should probably even argue that unless you can provide for your kids, you shouldn't have them. There should be a minimum income to have kids.

But if you start moving this way, quickly children then become a privilege of the middle-class earners, not for those on minimum wage. Even if you agree with this, do you think there is the political or public will to legislate this sort of thing?

So then the facts become: low earners will have children, and they will be disadvantaged compared to the children of higher earners. In some cases seriously so (e.g. malnourishment, lack of suitable heat and clothing). So what do we want to do about it, if anything?

remorseless

michaels wrote: »

Put all your income in your pension.

so does it mean you will end up with a better pension than someone who's been working without receiving any benefits?

lisyloo

I was thinking something a bit more severe, car accident, terminal cancer, etc.

There are many example where people can fall on hard times as opposed to just being lazy and not wanting to work.
Personally I think people who have been working for decades should get some risks covered by insurance and also have some savings, but you can never get every risk covered, so bad things happen and I don't think we should throw people out on the street.

If a woman and kids get abandoned, tough luck, she better find a job and have a family to assist her.

I don't subscribe to that idea.
It's not always easy to find a job that fits around childcare. I know you do it, but not everyone has after school clubs or family.
My mother is 88 and is very frail and can hardly walk (plus has dimensia) so in no way could look after children.

It's easier to assume that, I got abandoned with kids, the state will pay for me, then she will need benefit cause she needs to care for the kids, the for the kids school, then cause they cannot share the same room, when do you stop it?

We have caps and limits to stop it. That's exactly what they are for.

This is only encouraging others not to plan for the worse and take the easy way out cause there is little accountability.

Absolutely not.
I don't know which TV programs you have been watching or which papers you read but most people on benefits are struggling to make ends meet and live in horrible accomodation.
Of course there are exceptions when you see a somali family get £2m property in Mayfair but this is very muc the exception.
It is absolutely nothing to be aspired to. Many properties have damp and are complete flea pits.

Let them share a room, bathroom, travel an hour to school.

Where are you getting your information please?
People on benefits do not live in utopian accomodation with a room each.
Their accomdation is pretty horrible and cramped on the whole.

Please confirm where your info is coming from.

lisyloo

so does it mean you will end up with a better pension than someone who's been working without receiving any benefits?

Yes...................because there is a bigger pot to provide a pension with.

I agree this is wrong, but it's the rules that are wrong, not michaels.
They should work on gross salary not after pension salary.

remorseless

Physics wrote: »

Well, indeed. I think we should probably even argue that unless you can provide for your kids, you shouldn't have them. There should be a minimum income to have kids.

But if you start moving this way, quickly children then become a privilege of the middle-class earners, not for those on minimum wage. Even if you agree with this, do you think there is the political or public will to legislate this sort of thing?

So then the facts become: low earners will have children, and they will be disadvantaged compared to the children of higher earners. In some cases seriously so (e.g. malnourishment, lack of suitable heat and clothing). So what do we want to do about it, if anything?

Children are a privilege not a right! And if you cannot afford them, feed them, cloth them, educate them and the lot, then it is very irresponsible to bring them into the world.

It is not like as if the world population is in decline anyway...

Physics wrote: »

So what do we want to do about it, if anything?

very little, so that the behaviour is not encouraged. Being on benefit should not be looked as a viable option...

remorseless

lisyloo wrote: »

Where are you getting your information please?
People on benefits do not live in utopian accomodation with a room each.
Their accomdation is pretty horrible and cramped on the whole.

Please confirm where your info is coming from.

Sharing bedrooms

The following are expected to share:
an adult couple
2 children under 16 of the same sex
2 children under 10 (regardless of sex)

The following can have their own bedroom:
a single adult (16 or over)
a child that would normally share but shared bedrooms are already taken, eg you’ve 3 children and 2 already share
children who can’t share because of a disability or medical condition
a non-resident overnight carer for you or your partner (but only if they must stay overnight)

ukcarper

michaels wrote: »

Put all your income in your pension.

You would have thought that Osborne would have done something about that say a limit of 5% of earnings can be put into pension. I suppose not many people do what you are doing but it is a loop hole that should be closed.