£26,000 Benefit Cap

[wee_insomniac]

We have:

1 for general waste

1 for food waste

1 for paper

1 for cardboard

1 for metal/glass

1 for plastic bottles

1 for garden waste

the food waste is collected every week and the rest is collected every 2nd week...

[abdoujaparov]

How has this turned into a thread about bins?

[Kowalski]

How has this turned into a thread about bins?

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Well at least with all these bins about there will be somewhere for those with big families to stay when they get turfed out for rent arrears.

[lost]

^{noticed the beeb have updated their case studies.}

^{http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16876486}

most of the debate on the first one was if things like booze / fags / nights out / sky / mobiles were essentials. They've found a guy who doesn't drink, smoke or have sky. He uses his excess benefits to give money to the church and over pay his mortgage.

[Paul ™]

Not sure about this cap, but we stand to loose out on £250 a month due to the change in WTC in April if our circumstances remain the same.

That's diabolical and will cripple us.

[eFestivals]

LMAO...

Can anyone come up with an example that actually shows who this cap will actually hurt ?

I keep asking but no one seems able to do it

Any large family with many children who are on benefits, who have large housing costs as a result of their minimum housing needs.

FFS, how small-minded are you?

[eFestivals]

Are we talking putting the heating on or are we talking maybe dropping the Sky subscription ?

we're talking being able to pay the rent and feed the family you moron.

A two bedroom house in Bristol typically costs £800pm in rent. How much do you think a 5 bedroom house in London costs in rent for a family with (say) 8 kids? We're talking £2k+ a month - which is £24k, leaving just £2k to feed them all and heat the house in a year.

How much do you think it costs to feed and clothe and heat that house and family?

FFS.

[lost]

I'm wondering how many landlords will have to take the hit.. if they all evicted their tenants at the same time there will be a lot of rental properties coming onto the market at once, there can't be many working people who can afford 2k a month rent and that level of voids each month will soon add up.

[Paul ™]

Oh yeah... There is the hours issue now as well... 24 hour minimum...

If only one of you work, that person has to work at least 24 hours per week

If you both work you have to work a total of 24 hours per week with one of you working at least 16 hours per week

I think the hours change rule was nothing short of nasty...

[Paul ™]

True, only been claiming it since October and all they asked for was an estimate of earnings from then till April this year.

At that point we put in an estimate and never had to prove anything, guess looking back on my hours since then I have averaged 23 hours a week so could probably get away with it.. still doesn't feel right though.

[Kyelo]

They will either take a hit or be put in a position where they default on their buy to let mortgage no doubt propping up the property...

Either way, a lot of these landlords have been stealing public money for a long time and this should drive rents down... or release properties...

I am sure the couple of eight kid families will be helped in other ways. I doubt we will be seeing them on the streets as we make our way to work...

[eFestivals]

http://www.rightmove...uses&radius=1.0

Two bedroom house in Bristol....

£800 ??? LMAO

which part of "typically" passed you by?

If someone is in a house costing £800pm and becomes unemployed, they can't afford to move you moron. Where do they get the deposit from? How do they cover the moving costs?

[eFestivals]

8 kids hey.. Well that was always going to be affordable... I suppose this is the problem... The country and other tax payers being fucked over by the ridiculous actions of other people.

So do you draw a line or just lie back and get fucked?

I wonder how many REAL people this will affect... There can't be many 8 kid families in central London...

My cousin - a good catholic (you know, the faith you think makes people better people) - has eight kids. He's always worked.

Tomorrow he falls off a ladder and can't work again.

You say tough shit, shouldn't have had those kids and expect the state to pay. Very Christian of you that is.

Because you're a moron with the intelligence of a pea.

[lost]

Sure landlords could convert to HMO licenses and get loads more?

[eFestivals]

Maybe they should of took one of the £600pm ones I just showed you and stuck away the extra £200pm...

This is all about what's reasonable...

yeah, because you bought the cheapest house that suits your needs, didn't you? Rather than one more expensive than the cheapest, one that you actually wanted.

FFS. None of the bollocks you spout you apply to yourself.

Brain the size of a pea. Double-standards. Moron.

[eFestivals]

Introduce him to the variety of insurance products on the market to help protect against such things. I have one for my family.

Or is that a bit to much like forward thinking ?

Pretty sure having no mortgage liability (for example) and then the range of benefits will see his family covered...

I've no idea of mu cousin's finances, but I do know that he works all hours to support his large family (as does his wife).

Perhaps they work all of those hours and can only just afford the mortgage (for their three bed house BTW, with their eight kids!!!!) but not insurance.

You really are a moron. You asked who this change would effect, I've told you, and now you're just spouting ignorant bollocks that you say others should do but you haven't done yourself (cos you've bought a house that's more expensive than your basic needs).

Double-standards. Moron.

[Kyelo]

if its that easy they'd have already done it, I'm not a landlord but imagine you'd get more defaults and voids. The problem with the current system is for the last decade the government have been getting the figures for how much rent they should be paying from estate agents who in the case of managed properties get a cut of it for themselves

[eFestivals]

... ignoring the good advice I am giving....

such good advice it's not what you've done for yourself tho, is it?

You have a house beyond your minimum needs.

The insurance you have won't account for every eventuality (cos none do), so won't necessarily pay out.

So if you're unlucky enough to no longer be able to work - thru your own fault or not - you'll be a bigger drain on the state than you might have otherwise been if you'd properly planned ahead to cover all eventualities, as you say all people should do.

That is of course all people but yourself, because you've not taken your own advice.

So stop posting worthless bollocks, saying other people should do what you won't do yourself.

Meanwhile, none of that covers those people who have houses of a mimimum standard which costs them nearly all of the benefit cap.

Councils in London are already transferring people to Hull - a place where they're just about doomed to forever be unemployed, ensuring they're fucked forever.

You of course would happily accept to be fucked over by the state forever in that way if your circumstances changed. You wouldn't moan that you'd paid taxes to be properly supported.

[eFestivals]

Can you not see how its easier for the state to provide support to two parents with two children than it is for the state to provide support for two parents and eight children.

Can you not see how people can do a lot to look after themselves and protect themselves more instead of living on the edge.

they can do a lot. Perhaps most can do a lot more.

But just like you they cannot cover every eventuality.

My cousin certainly hasn't had eight kids wanting the state to support them - but there is no guarantee that him, you or anyone else is able to give that it might not fall back onto the state to support a family in need.

I mean ffs... Eight kids.. There just isn't a need...

In his case, there is - that thing called the Christian religion that you think is so great. He clearly adhere's to his faith. Are you now going to condemn him for that, after all you so recently spouted?

[eFestivals]

I live beyond my minimum needs but not to a point where someone can turn around say well didn't you have savings / insurance etc... and ask did you live within your means... Did you do reasonable things to protect yourself...

Outside of your name calling Barry Fish is an evil c**t line anyway...

PMSL - you live beyond the minimum.

Therefore you are putting a risk back onto the state by doing that. And that makes you no different to the people that you happily condemn.

Only a small proportion of people go into things without any consideration of the risks that come with their choices. They believe, with no different justification as you use for yourself, that they are not taking risks beyond their means.

But there are no guarantees in life, and for all the while we have a system of state support for the unfortunate & needy, the consequences of anyone's risks might fall back onto the state.

Do you really think that there's no one out there who hasn't made the same considerations of the risks as you, and given themselves the same covers, but who find those things don't cover them after all?

You just love to think yourself more righteous than everyone else in society. You constantly prove it.

[eFestivals]

Fucked over by the state ?

You mean get help with a roof over my head etc ?

help away from everything you know, in a dead-end place such as Hull.

Yeah, you'd love it. You'd think it's what you deserve, because you got a bang on the head that's made you mental and unable to work and support your family.

You'd welcome your kid to be brought up on a sink estate in a dead end town, as you think other kids should because of the poor luck of their parents. That's what your kid deserves for the bad luck of having mental you as her parent.

[eFestivals]

Ah so now you think the state should support religious behaviour... Make your mind up

No, I think that the state shouold support families with eight children up until the time they make having eight children illegal.

You aren't really dealing with the points I am making. It comes down to people behaving in a reasonable manner.

I am, you're just to styupid and self-absorbned to realise it. :roilleyes:

You have taken on obligations beyond your minimal needs. From what you've said of others, that's unreasonable. That's you being unreasonable.

You don't have cover in place for all eventualities. From what you've said of others, that's unreasonable. That's you being unreasonable.

Eight kids in a three bedroom house in one of the most expensive citys in the world and no spare money for savings and going to be effected by a cap on benefits which is over double the NMW... Sounds like he didn't execute his family planning well.

He doesn't live "in one of the most expensive citys in the world". I've not said where he lives, but it's not London.

When he had his eight kids the costs of supporting those eight kids were far lower than they are now. Is that just his fault that he didn't predict the changes in the world?

As far as I'm aware he's not claimed a benefit in his life. I know for certain that he refuses to take child benefit.

So he's less of a leech on the state than you are with your one kid. You actually demand the right to child benefit for your rich self - there's a thread here you started with the proof of that.

Which of you is being unreasonable? It ain't him. It's you with the expectation of state support, not him.

[eFestivals]

Working Tax Credit changes and benefits caps aren't an issue for disabled people. You are never reasonable during these discussions.

I started off in a sink estate. The concept you can't move on in life is bollocks.

the concept that everyone in the country can escape a sink estate is what is bollocks.

I'm trying to hammer into your head that 'reasonable' is not within your control. The state has supported large families up till now, so it's been reasonable for anyone with a large family to believe that if they fall on hard times that the state would support them.

The state moved the goal-posts, and you blame the person that the goalposts have moved.

If the next move of the goalposts is caps for the disabled and those with one kid and a cap of say £5k in benefits then everything I've said stands - and by your logic the fault is yours for not having predicted that.

Yeah, I'm the unreasonable one, not those who made reasonable choices within the circumstances that existed at the time of their choices.

[eFestivals]

You gave the example of a eight kid family in London... Then mixed in stuff about him...

I ultimately asked for a real example and its still not been shown clearly...

A real example is a family in london with eight kids.

You've looked for every excuse to say that making those kids financially suffer by a change of the rules is that family's fault.

I've pointed out that all you try to pin on that family applies exactly the same to yourself.

But you wish to believe that only you are reasonable and everyone else is scum.

That says far more about you than any family with eight kids who happen to be on benefits.