Opposition grows to benefit cap

Opposition grows to benefit cap

Author
Discussion

herewego

8,814 posts

212 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
I think the illogicality is that it doesn't consider that people in work also receive benefits so you are no longer comparing like with like.

rover 623gsi

5,230 posts

160 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
herewego said:
I think the illogicality is that it doesn't consider that people in work also receive benefits so you are no longer comparing like with like.
exactly

I am not totally opposed to the idea of a benefits cap, but imho this will not 'work' and it will save little, if any, taxpayers money

Ozzie Osmond

21,189 posts

245 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
Use Psychology said:
I think it is an entirely obvious principle that people on benefits shouldn't receive more than they (or more importantly, others) could working.
Absolutely right. Benefits should provide a "safety net". You fall into it when things go wrong.

By its very definition, a safety net must not be ABOVE the performers! And when it's correctly installed it's there to stop you hitting the ground - not to make sure you only fall a few inches.

rover 623gsi

5,230 posts

160 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
Use Psychology said:
This sentence is particularly bizarre given that I think it is an entirely obvious principle that people on benefits shouldn't receive more than they (or more importantly, others) could working.
the point is that if you are a working with a family with a household income of £26k you will also be receiving Child Benefit, you will almost certainly be receiving Working Tax Credit and you may well be receiving Housing Benefit (only one in eight recipients of HB is unemployed). So, you are already better off working than not working.

My view is that housing benefit should be taken out of the equation - housing costs vary much across the country and it is wrong to penalise everyone as a result.

paddyhasneeds

Original Poster:

50,781 posts

209 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
rover 623gsi said:
My view is that housing benefit should be taken out of the equation - housing costs vary much across the country and it is wrong to penalise everyone as a result.
You mean completely, or assessed based on location? I know you only read about the edge cases but I'm staggered every time I read a story about someone being housed in a £750k house paid for out of housing benefit.

I think part of the problem is that whilst there's no simple way to come up with a bunch of numbers that are right, you generally know when you see an example that's wrong.

herewego

8,814 posts

212 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
In my opinion as much government work as possible should be spread around the country to reduce the price pressure on London housing. Subsidies should be offered for private business to do the same.

Deva Link

26,934 posts

244 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
Oakey said:
Minimum wage works out at about £12,400 a year so assuming two people in a household earn minimum wage that's £24,800p.a. Less after tax. I'm not sure why people would be against a cap that's still considerably better than if you go out and earn your living.
If you compare like with like then a couple on benefits would get way less than a couple on minimum wage.

It's having numbers of children that make a difference, and the working couple on minimum wage would get considerable benefits on top of their pay.

rover 623gsi

5,230 posts

160 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
The housing benefit bill is massive - way too big. The govt is introducing a HB cap - I'm not against that in principle - but it is actually only going to affect 0.3% of HB recipients.

I can understand that the stories we all see in the Mail about an unemployed family of ten living in a mansion in Islington make the blood boil - but they really are very, very rare occurences. One of the main reason for that happening is that there is so little social housing being built that more and more families get placed in private homes meaning that the taxpayer picks up the tab for their rent which is much higher than if they were accomodation provided by a local authority of housing association. And of course, the stuff that does get built tends to be quite small because the reality is that hardly anyone has more then two kids these days.

I work for a housing association - we own and manage around 6,000 homes but none of them will be affected by the HB cap. In fact the govt is allowing us to increase rent by 6% next year and as around 60% of our rental income comes via HB that means we will be getting more money from the govt (i.e taxpayers). We're supposed to use the increased revenue to help us build more homes but I'm not convinced that will happen to any great degree.

JagLover

42,265 posts

234 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
Only in this country wouild it ever have been considered 'normal' for those on benefits to be able to rent houses that would be beyond the means of the vast majority of the private rented sector.

In the name of 'inclusion' we have a situation where only the rich and those on benefits can afford to live in many areas of central london.

I fully support the cap and I would suggest that anyone affected by it move.

Camoradi

4,285 posts

255 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
rover 623gsi said:
the point is that if you are a working with a family with a household income of £26k you will also be receiving Child Benefit, you will almost certainly be receiving Working Tax Credit and you may well be receiving Housing Benefit (only one in eight recipients of HB is unemployed). So, you are already better off working than not working.
As you should be.

Perhaps we should also include the costs of going to work. I suspect for many working families these costs exceed any received benefits

paddyhasneeds

Original Poster:

50,781 posts

209 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
What is child benefit anyway (no kids)?

Fair point on travel costs too, I average around £160/month on fuel. I suspect that's fairly typical and I think nothing of it tbh - you have to work and you have to travel to and from work.

Deva Link

26,934 posts

244 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
JagLover said:
Only in this country wouild it ever have been considered 'normal' for those on benefits to be able to rent houses that would be beyond the means of the vast majority of the private rented sector.
Is that true? I don't know, but what happens to big families in other European countries, when the adults are unemployed?

0a

23,879 posts

193 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
paddyhasneeds said:
I've read that a couple of times and I have to say I still don't entirely get what the central point of his argument is?

If it's that the policy is badly thought out, I'm sure that's possible. I'm still not clear from reading it what their objection is on the principle of the cap?
Quite, the argument seems to be that some people will lose money which is the whole point of introducing the cap, by definition these people were receiving too much (over the proposed cap) so that can only be a good thing.

A test I like to apply is to ask lefties whether, in designing legislation, they would introduce the right for benefits claimants to get, say, 30k. They all say no, which speaks volumes.

rover 623gsi

5,230 posts

160 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
Camoradi said:
As you should be.

Perhaps we should also include the costs of going to work. I suspect for many working families these costs exceed any received benefits
possibly - but I think it also shows the difficulty of trying to impose a one-size-fits-all solution. Some working people incur high travel costs, some spend only a little and some spend nothing at all. For example, I drive 20 miles to work whereas my wife walks half a mile.

herewego

8,814 posts

212 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
Isn't this a result of politician's forcing LAs to sell houses and at the same time preventing them from building new?

monkey gland

574 posts

154 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
As long as millions of feckless "never had a job in their lives" scum end up getting a lot less money per month them I'm OK with there being some collateral damage along the way.

rover 623gsi

5,230 posts

160 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
0a said:
Quite, the argument seems to be that some people will lose money which is the whole point of introducing the cap, by definition these people were receiving too much (over the proposed cap) so that can only be a good thing.

A test I like to apply is to ask lefties whether, in designing legislation, they would introduce the right for benefits claimants to get, say, 30k. They all say no, which speaks volumes.
i think it depends on context. The families that are receiving large sums of money are almost certainly doing so because their housing benefit is a lot of money. And that money goes (in theory) to the landlord (whether a private or social landlord). Of course the family is also receiving the 'benefit' of living in an expensive propert but they should not have any more money in their pocket than any other family. For me, the simple round this is that housing benefit should be paid directly to the landlord and should not be taken into account when assesing someone's 'benefit needs'.

rover 623gsi

5,230 posts

160 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
monkey gland said:
As long as millions of feckless "never had a job in their lives" scum end up getting a lot less money per month them I'm OK with there being some collateral damage along the way.
I really don't believe there are millions of feckless "never had a job in their lives" scum in this country. Sadly, there are some - but nowhere near that many.

paddyhasneeds

Original Poster:

50,781 posts

209 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
I'm sure I shall be derided for saying this, but if you're dependent on the state to house you, why should that be a house?

I'm absolutely sure that if I can book a room at Travellodge for £20 a night by booking far enough in advance, that it's not impossible to set up some kind of large hotel/hostel for those on housing benefit?

I'm not trying to sound like a heartless sod, I just don't get why it's a right to have a house provided for each individual family by the taxpayer?

In terms of efficiency it's just nuts.

As rover says though, not sure you can apply a one size fits all as there's clearly a difference between someone who's fallen on hard times due to being made redundant over someone who has never worked or who is just playing the system.

herewego

8,814 posts

212 months

Sunday 22nd January 2012
quotequote all
rover 623gsi said:
0a said:
Quite, the argument seems to be that some people will lose money which is the whole point of introducing the cap, by definition these people were receiving too much (over the proposed cap) so that can only be a good thing.

A test I like to apply is to ask lefties whether, in designing legislation, they would introduce the right for benefits claimants to get, say, 30k. They all say no, which speaks volumes.
i think it depends on context. The families that are receiving large sums of money are almost certainly doing so because their housing benefit is a lot of money. And that money goes (in theory) to the landlord (whether a private or social landlord). Of course the family is also receiving the 'benefit' of living in an expensive propert but they should not have any more money in their pocket than any other family. For me, the simple round this is that housing benefit should be paid directly to the landlord and should not be taken into account when assesing someone's 'benefit needs'.
I agree it should be paid directly to the landlord as it used to be some years ago.This should itself reduce costs because the landlord has to take into account when setting the rent that he might not get it all paid.
Would you agree that LAs should be allowed to find cheaper accomodation in other areas for unemployed claimants?

Edited by herewego on Sunday 22 January 16:45