£26,000 Benefit Cap

[eFestivals]

if I lose my job and have to move to a cheaper house then I would accept it.

the thing is, that's only possible if you've got spare money floating around to cover the costs of moving.

For someone who is completely skint, living hand to mouth, then they don't have the money required to move even tho it would save them money in the longer term. They're stuck in a catch 22.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I just cant help noticing the fact there is a thread with someone posting how nice it is that higher rate tax payers get to keep Child Benefit yet at the same time agreeing that unemployed families should essentially have it taken from them.

[eFestivals]

I just cant help noticing the fact there is a thread with someone posting how nice it is that higher rate tax payers get to keep Child Benefit yet at the same time agreeing that unemployed families should essentially have it taken from them.

yup - I pointed out this 'irony' to him when he (prematurely) started that thread to celebrate himself keeping child benefit, and I've pointed it out again in this thread.

People like him are the exact people that these tory policies are aimed at - putting workers against workers, so the rich can keep running off with all the money mostly unnoticed.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I've never understood why people can't work for benefits? I was unemployed for about 6 months and would have happily worked for the council cutting grass or something for my £50 a week! Big holes in CVs does not look good and doesn't help in attaining future employment.

[feral chile]

No, I think the system of actual money that a family receives works well. What the main issue seems to be is with the money that a family receives in Housing Benefit. Surely it would just be better to provide more Social Housing or to have rent regulation in many areas. Rents are on the increase again and in some areas families will be squeezed out anyway.

I get really angry over the issue of Housing Benefit. Many landlords set their rents at a level at or above the rate that the council can pay. That is so as to deliberately squeeze as much out of benefit claimants as they can. For those that don't know how that rate is set the council take a sample of rents for the area (around 2 to 3,000) and then the rent is set at the 30% percentile i.e 70% rents higher, so they will pay full benefit for the lowest 30%. Labour had the rate set at the 50% point which seemed fair and the Tories cut it back to 30%. Their argument is that people should move to find cheaper accomodation. Labour had the same plan, but what they said was if you found a property that was lower than the rent the council would pay you could keep 15 quid of the difference. For instance my rent is £90 and the LHA payable was £125, and the council actually paid me £105 per week. Now that has gone, fair enough, but how the hell are families going to find a place with cheaper rent when they only have 30% of places to look at now.

There seems to be an illusion that benefit claimants are living in luxurious accommodation when that just is not the case.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Glad they have got the Child Benefit amendment on the table. I was thinking as to were the Government get the idea that people farm more in benefits than if they work. That is total nonsense and anyone that knows there way around the system knows that. When working you can still claim tax credits, housing benefit and the like. When housing benefit is calculated an amount of your wages equivalent to Income Support for your family is disregarded. Any income over that only has 65% taken into account for Housing Benefit. I would have thought that it would be better to get the word out to people rather than crap like this. But them again there is very little work around.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

This 30% rule will mean that families will be forced to move into less desirable areas, with more crime, a less safe environment for the family, more opportunities for the kids to go astray, less likelihood of getting their kids into a high achieving school....as if they haven't enough to deal with. Now they have to deal with the possibility of losing their home too.

[lost]

Glad they have got the Child Benefit amendment on the table.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

It's just fucking nuts. Realy scary stuff. It has the possibility of creating a more visual division in society of the top and the bottom.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

It's just fucking nuts. Realy scary stuff. It has the possibility of creating a more visual division in society of the top and the bottom.

[abdoujaparov]

So if I lost my job you would support the goverment covering my mortgage so I can stay in the standard of living I am used too?

[eFestivals]

Interest only... So your going to need lender agreement if your a captal cusomer... Which is very varied...

Plus there are catches that go with it.... Like the 13 week rule.

the difference is, of course, that that benefit is paying for more than just your housing - so it shouldn't be equal. It's paying to protect your personal asset, an asset that doesn't exist in the case of renters.

[eFestivals]

So my question stands... My asset or not it's still our home and losing it would result in us moving... having to be in the same position as renters.

corrected for you.

[eFestivals]

Both are true... So not a correction... It's an additional point....

Either way you would be expecting me to move... So it's only fair someone renting beyond their station movese to something inline with their status...

No, I'm not "expecting" you to move. I'm simply pointing out that it shouldn't be beyond the possibilities, because the support you'd get with benefits towards your housing is not the same as it is with renters: there's added benefit to you which isn't there for renters with the support they get.

So if either of you were to be 'forced' out of your existing housing for something cheaper by the levels of benefit that are paid, then it's right and fair that the pressure falls on owners before it does renters, because of the extra benefit you get via your housing financial support.

After all - from the sort of view you standardly post here - you're both leeches on the state when in that position, but the owner is also making a personal financial gain at the expense of the state, which the renter isn't. Why should benefit payments give you or anyone else a gain, especially when it's not being given to everyone?

And of course via you being forced out of your house you'd help depress the housing market further, and further reduce the housing costs onto the state by that.

You don't like the state to pay for things for those you consider leeches. Why would you have any problem with that?

[abdoujaparov]

Interest only... So your going to need lender agreement if your a captal cusomer... Which is very varied...

Plus there are catches that go with it.... Like the 13 week rule.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I find it very interesting that the bill was blocked due mainly to the machinations of church leaders. It is a shame that some of their followers are total c**ts.

[eFestivals]

I find it very interesting that the bill was blocked due mainly to the machinations of church leaders. It is a shame that some of their followers are total c**ts.

it's hugely ironic that there's only two countries in the world that put unelected clerics into parliament, the UK and Iran. The UK slags off Iran for being a repressive unelected religious regime, while in the UK it's the unelected religious who hold back the attempted repression of the elected.

You couldn't make it up.

And while I'm a democrate thru and thru, it's times like these where I get to recognise just how valuable it is to have a second chamber where those within it are only answerable to their conscience rather than a stupid electorate or an even more stupid political patronage system.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

God Bless the House of Lords!

[abdoujaparov]

I haven't seen anything wrong yet with applying a limit of £26 (£35k gross) its more than a lot of working people have...

[feral chile]

So if I lost my job you would support the goverment covering my mortgage so I can stay in the standard of living I am used too?

So who shoud be subjected to reas like you describe ? The ones who are working, and have a less than £26k (£35k gross) income ?

[eFestivals]

But I do recognise the system needs some limits applying...

the system has some limits already. It's called 'means testing'.

And people need to take some responsibility for themselves....

A sound idea in principle, something that's nuts as you're meaning it in practice.

You've got a kid. Tomorrow you might lose your job. In which case you're irresponsible for having that kid, because you have no way whatsoever of knowing that you're able to take the proper resonsibility you should have for your kid for every day of her childhood.

Try joining up the dots. People on benefits are ordinary people just like you. They are not the leeching scumbags that you wish to beleive them to be.

[eFestivals]

Oh there you go again... Just making up stuff again...

WTF have I made up?

You said people should take responsibility for themselves and their families. A fine idea in principle.

I've simply pointed out that it's not possible for you to be 100% sure that you're always able to take responsibility for yourself &/or your own child.

So you are not able to live up to what you want and expect of others.

If that doesn't cause you food for thought and then a revision of your incrediably dumb views then there's no hope for you and you really are as thick as pigshit.

[feral chile]

WTF have I made up?

You said people should take responsibility for themselves and their families. A fine idea in principle.

I've simply pointed out that it's not possible for you to be 100% sure that you're always able to take responsibility for yourself &/or your own child.

So you are not able to live up to what you want and expect of others.

If that doesn't cause you food for thought and then a revision of your incrediably dumb views then there's no hope for you and you really are as thick as pigshit.

[eFestivals]

You can take steps to make your future more sustainable....

but you still can't guarantee that you'll be able to take financial responsibility for yourself, let alone your one kid - which makes you no different to those you love to condemn.

[russycarps]

we're one of the richest countries in the world and we are now actively going to INCREASE poverty rather than take steps to eradicate it. Truly shameful stuff.