Benefit cuts to hit more than 330,000 children

poppasmurf_bewdley

Why is it that various people and groups strongly object to the so called bedroom tax, but say nothing about the Local Housing Allowance that was introduced by the last Labour Government and limited benefits payable to the number of bedrooms required. So if you have too many bedrooms, you have to pay the difference.

One law for those in social housing and another for those in private housing? Or is it just that hearts bleed only for tenants in social housing?

The Labour Party especially have laid themselves wide open with their hypocracy.

Ames

LHA was brought in for new tenancies, not applied retrospectively. LHA applied to everyone, and didn't exempt the ones most likely to be over occupying. People at the time did object. When it was first introduced, if your rent was less than the LHA you got to keep the difference. You could (and in still can) rent somewhere under LHA with more rooms than your entitlement. People in private lets don't tend to have expensive adaptations made to the property which make finding somewhere suitable to move to incredibly difficult.

Just a few points...

FBaby

ou would have a low - disposable- income, no savings, no assets and no access to cheap credit.. vulnerable.

So like many people who work and are not entitled to any benefits. The difference is many of them were already in that position. Being worse off doesn't mean you are going to suffer.

bloolagoon

rogerblack wrote: »

I also note the topic of the thread.
It is hard, impossible, or illegal, for most children to move out and get a job - nomatter the parents.
Added to the awkward fact that someone in low-paid work most of the year is just as likely to fall into the benefits cap for that part of the year they are not employed, and lose their home.

But that happens now. We lived off far lower than the benefit cap purely because of being made redundant mid year. It happens often just people seem to forget that and it's just life.

We then took out insurance to give us space. Of course children can't move out but they have until April to get work.

As I said there are some people I do feel sorry for but see the argument that their disposable incomes are less than some workers have and this is wrong.

missapril75

I'm waiting for the government to extend the "right to buy" to private tenants.

Just imagine, all those people who have paid high rents and occupied their rented homes for many years being able to buy for a fraction of the real value, while the owner just has to accept less than market value because they have already received part payment over previous years.

It's only fair isn't it? :rotfl:

bloolagoon

Also people need to get a sense of perspective.
The article uses the formula of over 50% of homes unaffordable. Why should someone on benefits live in the top 49% of an area?

I've just looked up the 2 bed rate for my county and its £86.30 a week.

So the example in the article of a single mother with 2 children means.

£20k / 52 = £384.62. Less £86.30 is just short of £300 a week. Plus CTB, FSM, Free prescriptions.

Even using the LHA for areas outside London on the map still gives a very liveable amount of money with no need for children to starve. Many housed in SH will be better off too.

nannytone_2

in the context of this thread, to me vulnerable means someone that is unable to change or influence significantly, their current situation. either through employment or other endeavour.
someone that is unemployed isn't vulnerable, but a severely disabled person that is unemployed is.
their situation is unlikely to change significantly in a positive way

FBaby

in the context of this thread, to me vulnerable means someone that is unable to change or influence significantly, their current situation.

Using that definition, it would then apply to every single child in this world making the point of this thread pointless.

Even applying it to adult, I don't see how it can be concluded that a worker can't be vulnerable, and that all, or at least most people on benefits falls into that category. Many people on benefits are fortunate to have much more in their saving accounts than a working person.

Fatherof2mids

FBaby wrote: »

Using that definition, it would then apply to every single child in this world making the point of this thread pointless.

Even applying it to adult, I don't see how it can be concluded that a worker can't be vulnerable, and that all, or at least most people on benefits falls into that category. Many people on benefits are fortunate to have much more in their saving accounts than a working person.

I think that the point is, children are vulnerable people using most definitions

I will illustrate my point below.

The majority of people believe we should provide financial support to the impaired in society. This is because through no fault of there own they are unable to participate in activities, provide for them selves and live to a reasonable standard. They are therefore seen as vulnerable.

I believe that children we should provide financial support to the children of out of work/low income parents. This is because through no fault of there own they are unnable to participate in activities, provide for them selves and live to a reasonable standard. They are therefore seen as vulnerable.

Regardless of whether you see parents as work shy, f***less, or lazy, the children of these people are in the situation through no fault of there own. I've already shown the way finances can affect educational outcomes, should we not be trying to help these children out so the cycle of poverty is disrupted?

pmlindyloo

Fatherof2mids wrote: »

I think that the point is, children are vulnerable people using most definitions

I will illustrate my point below.

The majority of people believe we should provide financial support to the impaired in society. This is because through no fault of there own they are unable to participate in activities, provide for them selves and live to a reasonable standard. They are therefore seen as vulnerable.

I believe that children we should provide financial support to the children of out of work/low income parents. This is because through no fault of there own they are unnable to participate in activities, provide for them selves and live to a reasonable standard. They are therefore seen as vulnerable.

Regardless of whether you see parents as work shy, f***less, or lazy, the children of these people are in the situation through no fault of there own. I've already shown the way finances can affect educational outcomes, should we not be trying to help these children out so the cycle of poverty is disrupted?

I'm not disagreeing that we should provide support for children that are vulnerable but am unsure how that can be achieved.

Do we throw more money at their parents? Is that what you mean?

Our benefit system has always been extremely generous as regards people with children. Child Benefit/child tax credits, HB and CT support, extra money for a lot of children at school.

We also have systems in place through schools/doctors/hospital/health visitors/police to protect children.

I am also unsure what you mean by they are unable to participate in activities and live to a reasonable standard. What is the definition of activities that children should be able to participate in? What is a reasonable standard?

children who are malnourished/badly clothed will usually be 'picked up' by schools and social services alerted. OK, so sometimes there are failures in the system but at least they are in place.

I find it really difficult to accept that there are children in our society who go hungry/ are not clothed suitably/are not provided with warmth and shelter because we do not financially support their parents.

My experience is that the parents need education and support to budget properly, to prioritise their expenditure and to take responsibility. I do not see that giving them more money helps the children in these situations.