Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Former MSE Helen
    • By Former MSE Helen 15th Jul 13, 12:24 PM
    • 2,324Posts
    • 971Thanks
    Former MSE Helen
    MSE News: Benefits cap comes into force
    • #1
    • 15th Jul 13, 12:24 PM
    MSE News: Benefits cap comes into force 15th Jul 13 at 12:24 PM
    "A cap limiting the amount of benefits households can receive each week, has come into force today in parts of the UK..."

    Read the full story:

    Benefits cap comes into force



    Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

Page 3
  • clemmatis
    Post on DT today, family with 6 children (so 18k CTC alone), more to come as she's highly fertile, living in a 1 bedroom - yes 1 bedroom with 8 of them affected by the cap. Neither worked a day since child 1 born 8 years ago as she's to ill, so he needs to look after children. Living in filth and squalor (not just lack of storage, but filth).

    What do we do with them?

    They are wanting a 4 bed council house built for their needs.
    Originally posted by princessdon
    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.

    Ps yes I did point out that carers uniform hanging up in picture 1
    and people pointed out to you that it might not be a carer's uniform.
    • paddedjohn
    • By paddedjohn 17th Jul 13, 12:46 AM
    • 7,257 Posts
    • 7,903 Thanks
    paddedjohn
    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?
    Originally posted by princessdon
    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.
    Be Alert..........Britain needs lerts.
    • skintmacflint
    • By skintmacflint 17th Jul 13, 12:57 AM
    • 1,046 Posts
    • 2,052 Thanks
    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
    • By gettingready 17th Jul 13, 10:21 AM
    • 11,005 Posts
    • 16,367 Thanks
    gettingready
    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.
    Originally posted by clemmatis
    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
    • By zagfles 17th Jul 13, 11:19 AM
    • 14,701 Posts
    • 13,136 Thanks
    zagfles
    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.
    Originally posted by skintmacflint
    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
    • By gettingready 17th Jul 13, 1:18 PM
    • 11,005 Posts
    • 16,367 Thanks
    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?

    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
    • By gettingready 17th Jul 13, 1:20 PM
    • 11,005 Posts
    • 16,367 Thanks
    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
    • By gettingready 17th Jul 13, 2:04 PM
    • 11,005 Posts
    • 16,367 Thanks
    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.
    Last edited by gettingready; 17-07-2013 at 2:10 PM.
    • Nada666
    • By Nada666 17th Jul 13, 2:09 PM
    • 4,868 Posts
    • 3,886 Thanks
    Nada666
    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.
    Originally posted by clemmatis
    They are quite free to rent any private sector property they like. And can easily afford to.
    • gettingready
    • By gettingready 17th Jul 13, 2:11 PM
    • 11,005 Posts
    • 16,367 Thanks
    gettingready
    Re the 6 kids couple and the woman being refused sterilisation - the man could have a snip. Few years back.

    There is not reason/excuse to have so many kids when one can not support themselves and/or the kids.
    Last edited by gettingready; 17-07-2013 at 2:27 PM.
  • Morlock
    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.
    Originally posted by gettingready
    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.
    • gettingready
    • By gettingready 17th Jul 13, 3:39 PM
    • 11,005 Posts
    • 16,367 Thanks
    gettingready
    Working people pay the same level of rents and have to work/commute and pay for being squashed on public transport for several hours per week to be able to afford their rent.

    Benefit cap is way too high. Should be below NMW level for a full time job. Not higher, not even equivalent.
    Last edited by gettingready; 17-07-2013 at 3:43 PM.
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 17th Jul 13, 3:39 PM
    • 14,701 Posts
    • 13,136 Thanks
    zagfles
    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
    Originally posted by Ben Reeve-Lewis
    I think you're right that in that short-term it'll cost, but the whole point of the reforms (in general, including UC) is to make long term changes. The UK has the highest proportion of children living in workless household in the EU (other than Ireland), and by region Inner London is higher than anywhere else.

    Why do you think this is? Do you think it's anything to do with the structure of our tax and benefits system? In particular the following features:

    1) Benefits in other EU countries tend to more contributory - ie pay nothing (or not a lot in) and you get a lot less out.
    2) In other countries families are supported more through the tax system than the benefit system, encouraging people to work and reducing marginal withdrawal rates for families
    3) The higher your costs & needs (eg rent, children), the less incentive there is to work as the marginal deduction rates are sky high until you earn really serious money.

    So you get the silly situation where people on benefits can have more children without needing to consider whether they can afford them, whereas people not reliant on means tested benefits often need to take a big drop in standard of living when they have kids, plus you get people living in places like Central London more likely to be unemployed than people living in depressed parts of the country.

    In addition of course there's the cost of childcare, but there is a lot of support in tax credits plus childcare vouchers (which reduce taxable income and hence increase tax credits).

    http://www.poverty.org.uk/18/index.shtml
    • gettingready
    • By gettingready 17th Jul 13, 4:01 PM
    • 11,005 Posts
    • 16,367 Thanks
    gettingready
    1) Benefits in other EU countries tend to more contributory - ie pay nothing (or not a lot in) and you get a lot less out.
    Exactly - contribution based equivalent of job seekers allowance is at a level of last salary (!!!) for a while and then goes down bit by bit. For people that were working and CONTRIBUTED.

    For people that never worked, never contributed - it is a very basic amount.

    In UK - contribution or income based, the amount people get is exactly the same, terribly unfair system.

    PLUS - contribution based JSA does not allow for free perscription/dentist but income baed one does. So if someone worked and lost a job - they are not allowed to have free medication/dentist but people who never worked do.

    Hillarious really.

    No wonder so many people never bother to work
  • Morlock
    Working people pay the same level of rents and have to work/commute and pay for being squashed on public transport for several hours per week to be able to afford their rent.
    Originally posted by gettingready
    And in many cases those working people still need to claim housing benefit to live in a crappy one-bedroom flat. Rent controls need to be enforced, not housing benefit cut.
  • Morlock
    In UK - contribution or income based, the amount people get is exactly the same, terribly unfair system.
    Originally posted by gettingready
    It isn't exactly the same, particularly if claimants are part of a couple, other capital and household income is not considered when claiming contributions-based benefits.
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 17th Jul 13, 4:43 PM
    • 14,701 Posts
    • 13,136 Thanks
    zagfles
    And in many cases those working people still need to claim housing benefit to live in a crappy one-bedroom flat. Rent controls need to be enforced, not housing benefit cut.
    Originally posted by Morlock
    "Working people" won't be subject to the benefit cap.
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 17th Jul 13, 4:45 PM
    • 14,701 Posts
    • 13,136 Thanks
    zagfles
    It isn't exactly the same, particularly if claimants are part of a couple, other capital and household income is not considered when claiming contributions-based benefits.
    Originally posted by Morlock
    The base amounts are the same. And even contribution based JSA is reduced by some income, eg a low hours job or a pension. Plus income based JSA passports you to some additional benefits which contribution based doesn't.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,085Posts Today

7,916Users online

Martin's Twitter