Opposition grows to benefit cap

[Lost_BMW]

I've changed my mind...

I can see His face in that.

Sorry God, for ever having doubted you.

[JagLover]

Given the diverse range of religions in todays Britain I see no need for an 'established' church.

Any reform of the House of Lords should included booting them out.

I hear this is going back to the Commons next week so hopefully we will have the cap soon.

[roachcoach]

JagLover said:

I hear this is going back to the Commons next week so hopefully we will have the cap soon.

What I found interesting, and unexpected is the small number of people it would affect/correspondingly 'small' [its all relative] savings it would make.

I'd honestly have thought it would be much more.

[JagLover]

roachcoach said:

What I found interesting, and unexpected is the small number of people it would affect/correspondingly 'small' [its all relative] savings it would make.

I'd honestly have thought it would be much more.

87,000 households with 220,000 children?

It sounds quite a few to me?

and of course once the principal of a cap has been established will it be uprated with inflation?

[0a]

roachcoach said:

What I found interesting, and unexpected is the small number of people it would affect/correspondingly 'small' [its all relative] savings it would make.

I'd honestly have thought it would be much more.

It's a start. Once the concept of a cap is established, in future years we can have a serious debate about lowering the levels to something more reasonable. It's therefore about far more than money; it's about the principle that work should pay, and the principle that people should not be encouraged to breed for cash.

[Deva Link]

roachcoach said:

What I found interesting, and unexpected is the small number of people it would affect/correspondingly 'small' [its all relative] savings it would make.

I'd honestly have thought it would be much more.

Mentioned that earlier (or in the other thread, I can't remember ) - I suppose every little helps, but a lot of time and effort has already been spent on this, for 0.1% of the welfare bill.

It's not about the money though, it's about breaking dependency on benefits. But pandering to the Daily Mail readership is handy too.

[Willy Nilly]

Personally, I see it as a privilege to work up to and over 400 hours over time a year, not take all my holidays and never have any time off sick so that people can earn more than me by sitting at home doing nowt.

[roachcoach]

0a said:

roachcoach said:

What I found interesting, and unexpected is the small number of people it would affect/correspondingly 'small' [its all relative] savings it would make.

I'd honestly have thought it would be much more.

It's a start. Once the concept of a cap is established, in future years we can have a serious debate about lowering the levels to something more reasonable. It's therefore about far more than money; it's about the principle that work should pay, and the principle that people should not be encouraged to breed for cash.

I absolutely agree, I just expected it to be MORE people/households.




@jaglover - its a tiny fraction of the households in the country though.

[bobbylondonuk]

I dont think the people are getting the point of all of this.



The idea is to have a limit for public costs. If this is not restricted to a fixed limit...then the future will always give us more taxes and more welfare dependancy. To find out that all of it was scuppered by libdem nutcases was dissappointing. The Bishops are a voice to hit us in our hearts and nothing more, they will always come up with this kind of stuff..no surprise there.

The bill was screwed over by the politicians who are supposed to be part of a coalition!

[roachcoach]

bobbylondonuk said:

I dont think the people are getting the point of all of this.



The idea is to have a limit for public costs. If this is not restricted to a fixed limit...then the future will always give us more taxes and more welfare dependancy. To find out that all of it was scuppered by libdem nutcases was dissappointing. The Bishops are a voice to hit us in our hearts and nothing more, they will always come up with this kind of stuff..no surprise there.

The bill was screwed over by the politicians who are supposed to be part of a coalition!

A simple way to turn it around would be to say "ok, CB is excluded from the cap. Oh, by the way, CB is capped at two kids. Now ps off".

[Deva Link]

bobbylondonuk said:

The idea is to have a limit for public costs.

It limits a tiny area of public costs. The cap doesn't even apply to over 60% of people claiming relevant benefits.

[gtdc]

roachcoach said:

A simple way to turn it around would be to say "ok, CB is excluded from the cap. Oh, by the way, CB is capped at two kids. Now ps off".

That would be such a good idea.

The concept of increasing the size of a house for benefit claimants who have children since they got on benefits is beyond me. If the working man is expecting another child he doesn't expect Barratt Homes to drop him off a bigger house. If he can't afford to move he doesn't. Why the luxury should be extended to non workers I don't get. Ditto for council house tenants whose children have left home but remain in 4 bedroom places.

[hornet]

0a said:

It's a start. Once the concept of a cap is established, in future years we can have a serious debate about lowering the levels to something more reasonable. It's therefore about far more than money; it's about the principle that work should pay, and the principle that people should not be encouraged to breed for cash.

I wonder how much of the current debate is a softening exercise? Just by having the words "benefit cap" in the media regularly, people are going to start to realise that something is happening, even if the final form isn't the current idea. Get the idea of a cap in place and make people realise their actions do indeed have a consequence, then start shifting from where we are now to where we need to be. A sort of benefits "contraction and convergence" exercise.

[Gargamel]

At this speed we will have run out of money before the slow drip effect of this stuff starts to make a real difference.

We have got to reduce spending, this is a good start. I can't stand people who say well it's ONLY £290m a year, drop in the ocean of public finances.

Sod off, it is a mountain of money, which we are currently borrowing !

[Ozzie Osmond]

How government thinks:

• Inflation is running at 5%
• Our borrowings only cost 3%
• We're making 2% profit!

[crankedup]

AJS- said:

You really are like a caricature of a lefty crankedup.

Firstly, mixing people up hasn't resolved that particular problem. It has just meant that now low to middle income working families are living next door to dole scrounging scum, rather than on a different estate.

Secondly, the fact that you wouldn't want to live there yourself says it all. All about the supposed fix, and all about the lefty, who believes it's quite alright to impose these stupid experiments on people so long as they don't affect the lefty himself.

How about everyone just pays for their own housing? Sounds crazy but it might just work.

First point - I agree with you.
Second point - may come as a shock, I have the honesty to say what I feel and do. I choose to socialise with Gypsies on occasion, does this make me a Gypsy?
Third point - it is crazy.

[DonkeyApple]

Ozzie Osmond said:

How government thinks:

• Inflation is running at 5%
• Our borrowings only cost 3%
• We're making 2% profit!

I can't see that working at the next party conference where Dave explains to Britain, that although the debt is a larger number, the British Pound, ergo all your savings, are actually worth substantially less than last year, so it's all OK

[Benjurs]

98elise said:

Benjurs said:

Hi Guys

Just to clear things up on HB, it's now paid direct to the Landlord.

This is because when it was paid direct to the claimant some unscrupulousness people they'd spend it on other things such as drugs etc.

Then the Landlord would have all sorts of problems to evict because the claimants would pay say 70% of their rent and it would be hard to evict as the claimants would promise to pay the arrears thus AFAIK bypassing the eviction process.

Also it's correct that each council has limits on rent and combined with the lack of social housing makes it quite hard for single people w/o kids to locate housing, as many private landlords don't want DSS tenants.

How do I know this? Well I lost my house because I was put onto the wrong unemployment benefit and therefore wasn't eligible to receive help to pay my mortgage on an interest only basis and therefore lost my house.....

So it meant having to move back to my parents for almost a year before I could find a private landlord which would take DSS.

I just wanted to clear up a few misunderstandings on this thread.

No its not paid to the landlord, it is paid to the tenant.

It will only be paid to the landlord when the tenant has not been paying his rent for a couple of months, ie at the point you can evict.

I learnt this to my cost when my tenant did not pay any rent, even though they were collecting the full rent in HB.

Oh ok then...it is in my area...I know this as this is how my HB is paid...

Just to ask a question, how long ago were you stitched up? if you don't mind me asking?

I believe that paying direct to the Landlord is a relatively new provision..or maybe it's just the way my local council pays it.

You can see the rationale and it should prevent people like you getting stiffed by DSS tenants....

We're not all bad...I'm on HB after working in the city for 15 years and made redundant. The money I'm claiming is no where near the amount of PAYE I've paid over that time...

Anyways this is a side issue to the topic being discussed, so I just wanted to let you guys know how it can be paid.

Take it easy!

[RYH64E]

Benjurs said:

Oh ok then...it is in my area...I know this as this is how my HB is paid...

Just to ask a question, how long ago were you stitched up? if you don't mind me asking?

I believe that paying direct to the Landlord is a relatively new provision..or maybe it's just the way my local council pays it.

You can see the rationale and it should prevent people like you getting stiffed by DSS tenants....

We're not all bad...I'm on HB after working in the city for 15 years and made redundant. The money I'm claiming is no where near the amount of PAYE I've paid over that time...

Anyways this is a side issue to the topic being discussed, so I just wanted to let you guys know how it can be paid.

Take it easy!

In my area hb can be paid to either the landlord or the tenant, this has been the case for at least 15 years afaik. In the event of the claim proving to be fraudulent (or rejected for whatever reason) the landlord is responsible for refunding the money if it has been paid directly to him, if it has been paid to the tenant then it is the tenant's responsibility to repay (as if...).

[Benjurs]

RYH64E said:

Benjurs said:

Oh ok then...it is in my area...I know this as this is how my HB is paid...

Just to ask a question, how long ago were you stitched up? if you don't mind me asking?

I believe that paying direct to the Landlord is a relatively new provision..or maybe it's just the way my local council pays it.

You can see the rationale and it should prevent people like you getting stiffed by DSS tenants....

We're not all bad...I'm on HB after working in the city for 15 years and made redundant. The money I'm claiming is no where near the amount of PAYE I've paid over that time...

Anyways this is a side issue to the topic being discussed, so I just wanted to let you guys know how it can be paid.

Take it easy!

In my area hb can be paid to either the landlord or the tenant, this has been the case for at least 15 years afaik. In the event of the claim proving to be fraudulent (or rejected for whatever reason) the landlord is responsible for refunding the money if it has been paid directly to him, if it has been paid to the tenant then it is the tenant's responsibility to repay (as if...).

Yes that's as I understand it...although the chances of the tenant not paying it back at only £1 pw are very slim....

Edited by Benjurs on Tuesday 24th January 18:25