Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest Barry Fish

£26,000 Benefit Cap

665 posts in this topic

On the face of it this seem entirely reasonable to me...

Can someone point out whats wrong with it ?

You have to earn £35,000 to come out with a Net of £26,000... So to cap benefits at a £35,000 salary seem more than a resonable thing....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£35,000 in Oldham is a LOT of money... I can ensure you of that...

Still not seeing who it will be an issue for...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£35,000 in Oldham is a LOT of money... I can ensure you of that...

Still not seeing who it will be an issue for...

Whether £35,000 is a lot of money is fully dependent on how many people that £35k is supporting.

As that article makes clear, the benefit cap will mostly hit normally-working genuine benefit claimants and hit to far less extent the rarely-working perhaps-not-genuine claimants that this cap is designed to hit.

The idea behind the cap is sound in theory but the application of the cap won't have the desired effect on adults and will simply cause more poverty for already heavily-disadvantaged kids.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its an absolute minefield, i still stand by the argument that if the gov want to save money/increase revenues, then the vodafones of this world should be pursued - not the poor.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the current situation which has gone on for the last decade where huge amounts of public money is funneled into the pockets of private landlords to create huge btl empires can't continue and just feeds the higher rents.. equally I can't see things getting better when the population is increasing at 4 times the rate houses are being built..

saying all that though the cap seems affordable in most parts of the country, the issue seems to be with the families that want to stay in the expensive parts

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£35,000 in Oldham is a LOT of money... I can ensure you of that...

Still not seeing who it will be an issue for...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So no one can really justify why it shouldn't happen... Other than Vodafone are c**ts...

If you choose to have six children then that's your choice... But you should only expect so much state help... There should be a cut off point...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So no one can really justify why it shouldn't happen... Other than Vodafone are c**ts...

If you choose to have six children then that's your choice... But you should only expect so much state help... There should be a cut off point...

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So no one can really justify why it shouldn't happen... Other than Vodafone are c**ts...

If you choose to have six children then that's your choice... But you should only expect so much state help... There should be a cut off point...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, in your infinite wisdom, please explain what the family described in the Guardian article should do. Having had four children and then fallen victim to the economic circumstances (become unemployed etc) and now in a position where they have to subsist on pennies. Clearly they can no longer afford their four children - should they kill them, or simply offer them for adoption?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even ignoring that many families had had children based on their income before getting screwed over by the bankers' recession....

Why should the children live in poverty because of that?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know REAL people in Oldham EARNiNG less with that amount of children who survive... But you stick to the fictional made up example in the rag...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poverty? Oh fuck off and book a trip to the townships of south Africa...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poverty in the UK is real. Not as serious as in most other countries in the world true, but it's still real.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what is your answer to the perfectly plausible scenario set out in the Guardian article? Apart from the "dont have kids if you can afford them" nonsense...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know REAL people in Oldham EARNiNG less with that amount of children who survive... But you stick to the fictional made up example in the rag...

... and who survive with the addition of child benefit and who knows what other benefits/tax credits. The chances are that you know only of their earnings, not their total income from all directions.

This whole idea of moving somewhere cheaper is nuts, unless ther govt is going to help finance families to move home. Moving house costs a lot of money, and while the unthinking might say "well, they're unemployed so they can do it themselves" that only works if the moving-from property or moving-to property is prepared to give them that house rent-free for a day or two for the transition.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a £35,000 income the poverty argument is bollocks...

and you just throwing in £35k at every opportunity is bollocks too. :rolleyes:

Whether an income of that amount improverishes someone is 100% dependent on what irrevocable expenses have to come out of that money.

And it's funny how only last week you were banging on about how you deserved child benefit despite having an income over twice that amount.

So in your world the already-rich deserve benefits to help them live but the desperate do not. Nice.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know for a fact you can raise a family of four on £35K income.... The guardian article is bullshit...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know for a fact you can raise a family of four on £35K income.... The guardian article is bullshit...

It 100% depends on what the irrevocable expenses are. :rolleyes:

That £35k is really only £26k.

The rent in the real-world example that article gave is £1738pm, which leaves just £428 for electric, gas & water, a telephone (get a job without a telephone nowadays? Hugely unlikely!), and food for 6 people.

Without deducting money for the utilities, there's £2.34 per-person per day - EVERY DAY - with which to buy all living requirements (food, clothing, hygene products, etc) for each of those 6 people ... it might be possible, but given how much you moan currently in your privileged financial position then you'd deafen us if it was you having to get by on just that. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not put that cap on for say, 2 adults + 2/3 children? Anymore more kids and you get an extra supplement? Would still work out far less than is currently being handed out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just done tyhe calculation of the benefits that the family in Oldham would be receiving at the moment and it is as follows per annum.

JSA: 5509.40 per annum

Child Tax Credits: 11306.60 per annum

Housing Benefit: 7800 per annum

That comes to a total of £24,616 per annum thay would receive on what would be classed as benefits. At the moment Child Benefit is not used as income in the calculation of any other benefit such as Housing Benefit etc. Labour took it out of the equation in their bid to end child poverty. However the if this bill is passed it will be used as income for the Universal Credit. In addition they add Council Tax Benefit on top as well, so the benefits figure would become

Total Benefits: 24,616 per annum

Child Benefit for 4: 60.50 per week = 3146

Council Tax (Band A) 1028.55

Total: 28790.55

So the family of 4 in Oldham is going to lose £2790.55 a year once the cap come in. Thats nearly £54 a quid a week. Now that figure does not include education payments such as free school meals or the replacement grants for EMA, but for 4 kids I would guesstimate at least another £60?

What is planned here is diabolical in the least. Labour made a good move taking Child Benefit out of the loop, and with most of the famliles I know (and myself) the money goes directly to the kids. Now we have a situation of "Fuck You, we want it back".

Also lets not forget that the £150 per week rent figure that is stated is the maximum that can be paid for a 4 bedroomed house in Oldham. The rent for the family may well be above that (70% of rents in the area are higher than the LHA payable), and they have to make the shortfall anyway, so probably far worse off.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not put that cap on for say, 2 adults + 2/3 children? Anymore more kids and you get an extra supplement? Would still work out far less than is currently being handed out.

something like that would be far more sensible - but the govt is totally against any sort of supplement for extra kids, which is why they're insistant that even the 'universal benefit' that is child benefit is included within the cap.

IDS is giving a personal guarantee that not one single family will be made homeless as a result of this cap. I've always thought him a dick but now he's just proving himself stupid beyond belief.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not put that cap on for say, 2 adults + 2/3 children? Anymore more kids and you get an extra supplement? Would still work out far less than is currently being handed out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So no one can really justify why it shouldn't happen... Other than Vodafone are c**ts...

If you choose to have six children then that's your choice... But you should only expect so much state help... There should be a cut off point...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.