Benifits Cap at 26k

bearfraser

Much though i appriciate that people (a lot) are unemployed and all of us are suffering under this bunch of clown's called the government . Why oh why must we pay thousand's of pounds of tax to benifits claimers living in mansions at extorsionate rent's/mortgages:- Let the fun begin. :!:

GiantMike

While I immediately agreed with your sentiment, I heard a different opinion yesterday which made me think again. In some high rent areas it is luck whether you get allocated 'social housing' or are put into the private rented sector if there is no suitable social housing. As a result the 26k cap will significantly affect those in the private rented sector through no fault of theirs.

It's a bit like saying there are too many bikes in London, so we'll crush every bike with a frame number ending in a 1.

However, something like a maximum life benefit allowance would be useful. Everybody automatically gets up to £10k (per life, not per year). For every pound you have paid in tax you can claim 10p back in benefits, and social housing is factored in at a local market rate rather than the subsidised rate. When you reach your limit, that's it. No more. There would obviously be exceptions to this*, but it would link benefit to society to benefit from society.

IShaggy

GiantMike wrote:

In some high rent areas it is luck whether you get allocated 'social housing' or are put into the private rented sector if there is no suitable social housing. As a result the 26k cap will significantly affect those in the private rented sector through no fault of theirs.

The 'workers' move to more affordable areas and commute to work. Why should an unemployed family have a right to live in an expensive area, where hard working families aren't able to ?

Cressers

Why should those claiming benefits be forced to live in ghettoes?

Remember that one day the cruel finger of fate may poke you, and you will find that 'living' on benefits is no holiday as portrayed in the Daily Wail. How is that instead of focusing on wealthy b*stards responsible for the crisis that we are in, public ire is aimed at those who through no fault of their own find themselves in poverty. Exactly HOW will making their lives even more miserable suddenly create an economic recovery?

Jez mon

The thing is, as a private individual, if you can't afford to live in a certain area, you don't. The cap will probably have a significant, and detrimental effect to those on housing benefit living in private sector rented accommodation. However, at the moment, the system is helping to prop up the rental market. It seems to me, that having such high potential housing benefit, does more to benefit landlords than it does to benefit the recipients of said benefit.

26k is a fair chunk of money at the end of the day, it's what, the equivalent of 35K pre tax.

Why should those who are working and paying taxes be forced to live in ghettos?

It's not about forcing the jobless to live in some kind of benefit scroungers camp. It's about introducing a level of perceived fairness.

Cressers

I agree with what you say about HB being used to prop up the private rented sector. I have equal contempt for the way that Working Tax Credit is used as a way of subsidising low wages. If that is the problem then a blunt instrument global benefit cap isn't going to address it. Instead a freeze at current HB levels would be a more humane approach, giving the private rented sector time to readjust it's expectations of what the public should pay as an 'affordable' rent.

Frank the tank

"Looney leftist" here.

The benefits system has gotten out of control and something needs to be done but, this is not it.

I believe its a great bit of tory opportunism that ticks all their boxes.

A) Politically popular
Undesirables (people on benefits/the disadvantaged) can be moved into poor boroughs which are mostly safe labour seats so their votes won't count at the next election. It's a great piece of gerrymandaring.
C) Get to fill loads of crap substandard housing in high unemployment areas. Why should you live in Chelsea, there's plenty of empty houses in Gateshead/Middlesborough, fook off up north (well anywhere north of the Watford gap).
D) I believe the boundary commission will be discussing the reduction of parliamentary seats, hmmm, makes you think!

Frank the tank

Jez mon wrote:

The thing is, as a private individual, if you can't afford to live in a certain area, you don't. The cap will probably have a significant, and detrimental effect to those on housing benefit living in private sector rented accommodation. However, at the moment, the system is helping to prop up the rental market. It seems to me, that having such high potential housing benefit, does more to benefit landlords than it does to benefit the recipients of said benefit.

26k is a fair chunk of money at the end of the day, it's what, the equivalent of 35K pre tax.

Why should those who are working and paying taxes be forced to live in ghettos?

It's not about forcing the jobless to live in some kind of benefit scroungers camp. It's about introducing a level of perceived fairness.

Who's to say the rents in the private sector are not being set at an artifficially high level because they know the state will have to pay the bill? Just a thought.

capt_slog

I can see the "high rent" side of the argument, perhaps they should be looking at case by case.

However, if I could be guaranteed 26k (after tax!) and stop at home doing sweet FA, I'd gladly take that huge pay rise and do so.

Cressers

The £26K or beyond is only in exceptional circumstances. The rich b*stards would like the tabloid readers to think it is the norm, but it isn't.

daviesee

Cressers wrote:

The £26K or beyond is only in exceptional circumstances. The rich b*stards would like the tabloid readers to think it is the norm, but it isn't.

But it is just that - a cap. The vast majority will be unaffected.

If you are getting 26k after tax you are not poor. Neither will you be homeless.
You may have to move but that is not homeless.
I don't live in the house I would like for the very same reason.

This will affect so few it must be a smokescreen. What else is happening that we are missing?

Pross

I'm all for a cap but £26k does seem a bit on the low side for an entire family to get by on (is that the amount they actually get or do they get taxed on it?). Also, what happens to people such as the severely disabled who may have additional expenditures such as travel costs - do these get covered outside of the benefits cap?

daviesee

Pross wrote:

I'm all for a cap but £26k does seem a bit on the low side for an entire family to get by on (is that the amount they actually get or do they get taxed on it?). Also, what happens to people such as the severely disabled who may have additional expenditures such as travel costs - do these get covered outside of the benefits cap?

That's the max they would get tax free.

I understand the handicapped issue but have not seen that addressed elsewhere. Special case surely?

Frank the tank

daviesee wrote:

Cressers wrote:

The £26K or beyond is only in exceptional circumstances. The rich b*stards would like the tabloid readers to think it is the norm, but it isn't.

But it is just that - a cap. The vast majority will be unaffected.

If you are getting 26k after tax you are not poor. Neither will you be homeless.
You may have to move but that is not homeless.
I don't live in the house I would like for the very same reason.

This will affect so few it must be a smokescreen. What else is happening that we are missing?

It's about gerrymandaring and the manipulation of votes.
It's about the announcement of the abolition of the 50% tax rate.
It's about the non-collection of £BILLIONS of corporation tax.
Its about the non-collection of income tax from the very wealthiest in society.
It's about picking on the least able to defend themselves.
It's about being a tory.

symo

Frank the tank wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Cressers wrote:

The £26K or beyond is only in exceptional circumstances. The rich b*stards would like the tabloid readers to think it is the norm, but it isn't.

But it is just that - a cap. The vast majority will be unaffected.

If you are getting 26k after tax you are not poor. Neither will you be homeless.
You may have to move but that is not homeless.
I don't live in the house I would like for the very same reason.

This will affect so few it must be a smokescreen. What else is happening that we are missing?

It's about gerrymandaring and the manipulation of votes.
It's about the announcement of the abolition of the 50% tax rate.
It's about the non-collection of £BILLIONS of corporation tax.
Its about the non-collection of income tax from the very wealthiest in society.
It's about picking on the least able to defend themselves.
It's about being a tory.

Yes much better private landlords are allowed to charge the state whatever they want with impunity thus keeping house prices at unrealistic levels, thus ensuring mortgage payments are such a large portion of take home pay that the overall economy suffers owing to the lack of free spending.

Frank the tank

I would say private landlords will charge a competitive rate,but, if that rate can be "fixed" at an artificially high rate due to a possible "cartell" then they will. If your property is in the right location folks will rent it if they can afford it.

CiB

The welfare state was designed to catch people falling into absolute poverty & hardship. It's progressed to the point where it's seen as a means of ensuring that everyone has a reasonably comfortable lifestyle - check the definitions of what constitutes poverty these days.

It's perfectly reasonable for the govt to announce that there needs to be an upper limit; people won't be thrown out of their rented homes to be instantly transferred to the Homeless pot to cost as much or more through a different arm of the welfare state, it's right that this decision is being pushed through.

The welfare state needs to move closer to supporting those in need, not being a comfy alternative to doing what the rest of us have to do which is to go out and earn a living. The argument boils down to how far along do you move the slider, between being the safety net that stops people falling into poverty & hardship, and providing reasonable accommodation & living costs in nice areas. To what extent should the state support those who need support?

daviesee

Frank the tank wrote:

It's about gerrymandaring and the manipulation of votes. I can get that. All parties do it.
It's about the announcement of the abolition of the 50% tax rate. That's the kind of hidden thing I was relating to.
It's about the non-collection of £BILLIONS of corporation tax.That's the kind of hidden thing I was relating to.
Its about the non-collection of income tax from the very wealthiest in society. Tax avoidance is fair game and everyone should play it. There are tax breaks/benefits for most of society. Tax evasion should be pusued vigorously.
It's about picking on the least able to defend themselves. Who and how many?
It's about being a tory.

I've not noticed much different from the last crowd.

Bobbinogs

CiB wrote:

The welfare state was designed to catch people falling into absolute poverty & hardship. It's progressed to the point where it's seen as a means of ensuring that everyone has a reasonably comfortable lifestyle - check the definitions of what constitutes poverty these days.

It's perfectly reasonable for the govt to announce that there needs to be an upper limit; people won't be thrown out of their rented homes to be instantly transferred to the Homeless pot to cost as much or more through a different arm of the welfare state, it's right that this decision is being pushed through.

The welfare state needs to move closer to supporting those in need, not being a comfy alternative to doing what the rest of us have to do which is to go out and earn a living. The argument boils down to how far along do you move the slider, between being the safety net that stops people falling into poverty & hardship, and providing reasonable accommodation & living costs in nice areas. To what extent should the state support those who need support?

Here here! ...and for me, the £26k cap is about right. Most of us want a nicer house in a nicer area...but life is about compromises based on what we can afford. The fact that landlords will be forced to start cutting rents is an added bonus.

For those moaning about the tories, two words "Ed Miliband".

Cleat Eastwood

Was chatting someone from the CAB and she said that the cap will have little effect on people on outside of London - it's a metropolitan gentrification. Lha out side of london averages at 250 a week, in the capital its 2000. Looks like the rich are building a cordon around themselves. Rick Chasey once posted a comment that has stuck with me - he said 'greed is a terrible mistress' - it amazes me how making even one person homeless can be seen as acceptable just to save money - these are peoples lives - if I had a gast it would be flabbered.

Frank the tank

daviesee wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

It's about gerrymandaring and the manipulation of votes. I can get that. All parties do it.
It's about the announcement of the abolition of the 50% tax rate. That's the kind of hidden thing I was relating to.
It's about the non-collection of £BILLIONS of corporation tax.That's the kind of hidden thing I was relating to.
Its about the non-collection of income tax from the very wealthiest in society. Tax avoidance is fair game and everyone should play it. There are tax breaks/benefits for most of society. Tax evasion should be pusued vigorously.
It's about picking on the least able to defend themselves. Who and how many?
It's about being a tory.

I've not noticed much different from the last crowd.

For the umpteenth time I'll say it on here again, I have no great love for the "new labour" lot either just tories with a red rosette IMO.

ddraver

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Looks like the rich are building a cordon around themselves.

Oh FFS are you for real?!?!? If fate had pointed the creul finger of an (approx) 35 000 wage to me I'd be laughing all the way to the Cervelo shop!

For the vast majority of peole who are genuinely struggling to find work, this will have no effect, For those who want to not work but still live in Central London, it will be a well deserved reality shock! If you don't study hard and then work hard there are places that you cannot afford to live. That's life for the rest of us and why I didn t live in Kensignton when I lived in London or why I don't live on a houseboat in The Canal District in Amsterdam!

No, they don't need to be turfed out onto the street but yes, they need to make a choice about where they can afford to live.

mar_k

This is something that is quite close to home with me,
I am 29yrs old and in full time employement and work on average 10-15hour day, 5 day a week ( 6 days every other week )
My basic wage is a little over the national average so its really the overtime I do that bumps up my money so it becomes a livable wage. We have 2 young children age 4 and 7 who are well dressed how ever we do have to go without some things, we dont have regular holidays and will most likely not be going away this year.

My brother on the other hand is 26 and has never been in full time work. He is with a 29 year old girl who has 7 children
in total, 2 of them children are my brothers the rest belong to 3 other men.
They claim for everything they can and seem to live a comfortable life. drive a nice car and have regular holidays and short breaks away, They are even able to afford a fair few take aways a week. I have stopped talking to my brother as I cant condone what they are doing.
I have tried talking to him and have even told him its about time he supported his family like other REAL men do.
I have told him he cant have any pride as he wouldnt let all the tax payers support him and his brood.
He just laughs and tells me Im a mug for working.
It has caused a bit of a family bust up as I will not have him or any of his kids near me.
The last time I see him was 2 years ago and I had a real bad fall out after his partner was complaining about the goverment only giving her £500 to buy everything needed for the lastest edition to the family, She commented that she would like to see 'them' buy it all with just £500.

I hit the roof, I let her have it big time, This happened in my dads house. I told her that maybe she should have keeped the other stuff she had recently sold on ebay or better still, Stop opening her legs.

This caused a huge bust up between my brother and me so we no longer talk.
Some people I work with say I should let it go as my brother is my brother, but I can't.
I despise everything he has become and until he changes and starts looking after the family he has made and taken on he will not be welcome in my house.

I honestly believe that if a girl falls preganant whilst already on benifit, she should not be allowed to claim for the next as she already knew she couldnt afford another baby.

I also think you should only be given enough money to feed yourself and still feel a little hungry after.

Instead of being given money I think they should be given a type of credit card with a balance and that balance can only be spent in certain stores and only on food, that way they wouldnt be able to buy ciggerettes and other stuff that isnt needed and shouldnt be funded by Tax payers.


I could also tell you all about my partners p*ss head brother who lives in a council flat on benifit who is drinking his life away but Ive already typed too much.
Sorry for the long write up but this is some thing that boils my p*ss big time.
No one has the right to a free life style.
Bring back the days when people used to be ashamed to be on benifit.
Bring back morals.

MaxwellBygraves

Cressers wrote:

Why should those claiming benefits be forced to live in ghettoes?

Remember that one day the cruel finger of fate may poke you, and you will find that 'living' on benefits is no holiday as portrayed in the Daily Wail. How is that instead of focusing on wealthy b*stards responsible for the crisis that we are in, public ire is aimed at those who through no fault of their own find themselves in poverty. Exactly HOW will making their lives even more miserable suddenly create an economic recovery?

Well said mate. It's just politics at it's ugliest, focus on the poor because they are easy targets and can't fight back. Shameful.

CiB

mar_k wrote:

Stuff...

I honestly believe that if a girl falls preganant whilst already on benifit, she should not be allowed to claim for the next as she already knew she couldnt afford another baby.

More stuff...

...all of which is bang on, that being on benefits has become a choice, a viable choice, and it shouldn't be. The bother is the bit I've left in. This penalises the child who had no say in his being here and creates what are effectively second-class children, which as a fine upstanding Tory I can't agree with.

Your tale - taken at face value - reinforces the point that for some people living a comfy lifestyle paid for by state benefits is an option. I'd like to see the option to live that lifestyle made less attractive, which is what IDS is trying to do. The biggest problem seems to be the prevalent attitude that change is necessary, as long as no-one's circumstances are changed by it. IDS is right to push this through, so that we can arrive at a different norm which everybody quickly gets used to.

mar_k

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Cressers wrote:

Why should those claiming benefits be forced to live in ghettoes?

Remember that one day the cruel finger of fate may poke you, and you will find that 'living' on benefits is no holiday as portrayed in the Daily Wail. How is that instead of focusing on wealthy b*stards responsible for the crisis that we are in, public ire is aimed at those who through no fault of their own find themselves in poverty. Exactly HOW will making their lives even more miserable suddenly create an economic recovery?

Well said mate. It's just politics at it's ugliest, focus on the poor because they are easy targets and can't fight back. Shameful.

I disagree, yes there are genuine people who NEED the benifts and they will be the ones who are trying their hardest to get back into work, but how to you tackle those long term scroungers who are enjoying a comfortable life on benifits without affecting the genuine cases?

Maybe it should be based on your past work history or something. I dont know but it needs sorting

mar_k

CiB wrote:

mar_k wrote:

Stuff...

I honestly believe that if a girl falls preganant whilst already on benifit, she should not be allowed to claim for the next as she already knew she couldnt afford another baby.

More stuff...

...all of which is bang on, that being on benefits has become a choice, a viable choice, and it shouldn't be. The bother is the bit I've left in. This penalises the child who had no say in his being here and creates what are effectively second-class children, which as a fine upstanding Tory I can't agree with.

Your tale - taken at face value - reinforces the point that for some people living a comfy lifestyle paid for by state benefits is an option. I'd like to see the option to live that lifestyle made less attractive, which is what IDS is trying to do. The biggest problem seems to be the prevalent attitude that change is necessary, as long as no-one's circumstances are changed by it. IDS is right to push this through, so that we can arrive at a different norm which everybody quickly gets used to.

But if we remove the incentive to have more children whilst on benifits, then maybe they would think twice.
I know its harsh but surely they would start to realise that its no longer viable?

daviesee

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Well said mate. It's just politics at it's ugliest, focus on the poor because they are easy targets and can't fight back. Shameful.

26k cash in hand = poor. Hmmmmmm

GiantMike

There isn't a simple answer to this because it's about people's expectations, behaviour, luck etc.

Nobody wants genuine cases of hardship to go unsupported. Nobody wants the workshy to get excessive benefits. But there's a full spectrum from the most-deserving to the least deserving and we could quote examples of each all day. At the end of the day it's the way the law is applied as much as what the law actually says that really matters.

MaxwellBygraves

CiB wrote:

mar_k wrote:

Stuff...

I honestly believe that if a girl falls preganant whilst already on benifit, she should not be allowed to claim for the next as she already knew she couldnt afford another baby.

More stuff...

...all of which is bang on, that being on benefits has become a choice, a viable choice, and it shouldn't be. The bother is the bit I've left in. This penalises the child who had no say in his being here and creates what are effectively second-class children, which as a fine upstanding Tory I can't agree with.

Your tale - taken at face value - reinforces the point that for some people living a comfy lifestyle paid for by state benefits is an option. I'd like to see the option to live that lifestyle made less attractive, which is what IDS is trying to do. The biggest problem seems to be the prevalent attitude that change is necessary, as long as no-one's circumstances are changed by it. IDS is right to push this through, so that we can arrive at a different norm which everybody quickly gets used to.

You should know that the plural of anecdote is not data.

Despite what the Daily Fail will have you believe, life with very little is not easy or 'comfy'. They conveniently omit facts that the amount of benefits going unclaimed despite people being legally entitled to them is around the £16 billion mark per annum. Which dwarfs the amount that is lost to benefit fraud. Or that in 1950's Britain, when the amount of money you could claim was at it's highest in relation to pay also saw the lowest levels of unemployment. Or that lost tax revenues due to tax evasion dwarfs the benefit fraud bill. No-one blamed the poorest and most vulnerable when the economy went t!ts up. Yet here we are, punishing those very people who need help the most to pay for their 'masters' mistakes.

Truth is, 'individualism' (read: selfishness, me first) is something which has infected all levels of society, not just the very poorest. We desperately need to start asking bigger questions rather than focusing on the narrow-minded, vote winning issues which you will only ever hear the three main parties talking about. What do what we want to stand for? Is it better to help others or help yourself? How far can politicians go before we start thinking for ourselves and get angry?

MaxwellBygraves

Just read a good article in the Guardian here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ency-loans