Opposition grows to benefit cap

[roachcoach]

Deva Link said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Back on topic, I'm not abundantly clear why people in receipt of benefits should be in a better position than people who fund them...

They're not - if you compare like for like. But people on here seem to want to compare the benefits received by family of 10 living in central London with the salary of a single guy working in Hull.

I'd have said the general ire is that why it is even POSSIBLE to be better off on benefits than working - that implies something is SERIOUSLY out of whack.

[Johnnytheboy]

Deva Link said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Back on topic, I'm not abundantly clear why people in receipt of benefits should be in a better position than people who fund them...

They're not - if you compare like for like. But people on here seem to want to compare the benefits received by family of 10 living in central London with the salary of a single guy working in Hull.

For the benefit of clarity, my full sentence finished "in that the money available to them isn't subject to some kind of ceiling."

I appreciate the money goes a lot further in Hull. So if - like a wage earning family - the benefits have an upper limit, and a family are unwilling to work, they have an option of increasing their disposable income by - for example - moving to Hull.

[98elise]

Silver Smudger said:

I am middle-management working in (and commuting to) London. My salary is nearly 40k, well above the average income quoted. My take-home after tax and NI etc is a little over 2k per month, or 24k per year. I am married with 3 children, 2 cars and a 4-bed semi-detached house in Kent, and consider myself reasonably successful - It has taken many working years to get to this level.

Apparently, I could be made redundant tomorrow and, if I can fill the correct benefit forms, not have to travel to work any more and not even come close to this cap and so make no changes to my lifestyle? Can this be right - What am I missing? - I will have to look into this benefit scrounging

You've just described my senario, except I was made redundant in November. I get £70 per week in benefits, my out goings are just under 2k per month

[Deva Link]

Johnnytheboy said:

For the benefit of clarity, my full sentence finished "in that the money available to them isn't subject to some kind of ceiling."

Sorry, I took that out because I didn't think it was relevant. Benefits are subject to a ceiling now, based on the claiming families circumstances.

[Johnnytheboy]

Deva Link said:

Sorry, I took that out because I didn't think it was relevant. Benefits are subject to a ceiling now, based on the claiming families circumstances.

So all the governement are doing really is proposing to change the criteria governing the ceiling?

[thinfourth2]

fk it bin the whole system and roll out the universal credit

See how "unfair" that system would be

[Deva Link]

Johnnytheboy said:

So all the governement are doing really is proposing to change the criteria governing the ceiling?

They're lowering the ceiling.

I don't have a problem with this, by the way. My issue is that it's pandering to the Daily Mail readers again. Apparently the max effect this will have is around £250M - in a benefits bill of close to £200Bn. There surely must be more cost effective measures to be spending time on.

A much better solution to excessive housing benefit payments would be to build more social housing.

[Johnnytheboy]

Deva Link said:

Johnnytheboy said:

So all the governement are doing really is proposing to change the criteria governing the ceiling?

They're lowering the ceiling.

I don't have a problem with this, by the way. My issue is that it's pandering to the Daily Mail readers again. Apparently the max effect this will have is around £250M - in a benefits bill of close to £200Bn. There surely must be more cost effective measures to be spending time on.

A much better solution to excessive housing benefit payments would be to build more social housing.

Is there a way to lower the ceiling without pandering to the Daily Mail readers?

[Ozzie Osmond]

Deva Link said:

A much better solution to excessive housing benefit payments would be to build more social housing.

An interesting and, no doubt, controversial view.

[jbi]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Deva Link said:

A much better solution to excessive housing benefit payments would be to build more social housing.

An interesting and, no doubt, controversial view.

Social housing creates deprived areas, while losing money we can not afford.

No go.

[Camoradi]

Deva Link said:

Sorry, I took that out because I didn't think it was relevant. Benefits are subject to a ceiling now, based on the claiming families circumstances.

Please could you tell me what is the amount of the current "ceiling"

A clue: There isn't currently a ceiling

[crankedup]

DonkeyApple said:

Or preferably, one where we discuss just how much damage scabby landlords are doing by ripping off council tennents, the failures of council employees to self regulate the costs of housing. These two issues are far more costly to the working man than a small handful of decietful punters ripping the system off.

This is one subject where I don't feel the claimants have any relevent blame and that the finger firmly points to councils who over pay rents and landlords who over charge rents.

I have two colleagues who run larger resi portfolios in London and they play the system so amazingly well that they make a fortune letting to council versus private. The stories are quite shocking as to just how much they can charge for a stty flat.

Agree 100% with DA, the tax payer has been handing over barrow loads of cash to some landlords who have done very well from letting to these people. We will either see a huge drop in monthly rental charges or an over supply of crappy little flats at exorbitant rates.

[Deva Link]

jbi said:

Social housing creates deprived areas....

What, and moving everyone on housing benefit to lower cost areas, doesn't?

[Deva Link]

Camoradi said:

Please could you tell me what is the amount of the current "ceiling"

A clue: There isn't currently a ceiling

Of course there's a ceiling - it's defined by the circumstances of the family who claim. They can't just claim infinite amounts of benefit.

[crankedup]

jbi said:

Social housing creates deprived areas, while losing money we can not afford.

No go.

Social housing used to create areas that might have been described as 'unsavoury'. Nowadays that has been identified and the solution to build a mix of private and social within the same development has resolved that particular problem. Having said that I would not want to live on such a development with my personal money sunk into bricks and mortar.

[crankedup]

26K ceiling includes any child benefits, thats just wrong the child benefit should be on top of any overall benefits ceiling. Lower the cap to 24k, for those with kids they will still receive an extra bit of cash on top of the 24k.

[Deva Link]

crankedup said:

Having said that I would not want to live on such a development with my personal money sunk into bricks and mortar.

Quite. Mind you, as LA's start taking over old people's houses then soon we'll all be surrounded by chavs fighting in the street.

[crankedup]

Deva Link said:

Quite. Mind you, as LA's start taking over old people's houses then soon we'll all be surrounded by chavs fighting in the street.

unimaginable? maybe not! Nice thought though - Government flogged my home to subsidise my last years in this decaying pile of ste. Cynical? never.

[DonkeyApple]

Deva Link said:

crankedup said:

Having said that I would not want to live on such a development with my personal money sunk into bricks and mortar.

Quite. Mind you, as LA's start taking over old people's houses then soon we'll all be surrounded by chavs fighting in the street.

Let's not forget that the majority of people who receive housing allowance are working or trying to work. And as such, the system should enable them to live within a suitable distance (walking, cycling, moped or bus etc) to an area where they stand a high chance of finding employment even if that means they cost more.

Personally I don't feel that any payments should be made in cash but in presentable certificates which would mean that to defraud the system would take more effort and involve more parties making it easier to deal with and I also feel that if someone is proven to not be actively in employment or properly seeking employment I see absolutely no need for them to have any form of housing assistance. Homes should be strictly for those contributing or trying to contribute or logically proven to be unable to contribute.

Such a system, while aggressive, would firstly encourage many to seek work ernestly and second encourage those in employment blighted areas to move.

[Camoradi]

Deva Link said:

Camoradi said:

Please could you tell me what is the amount of the current "ceiling"

A clue: There isn't currently a ceiling

Of course there's a ceiling - it's defined by the circumstances of the family who claim. They can't just claim infinite amounts of benefit.

In theory "they" can. If they have enough children, or convince the local authority that they need a bigger/ more expensive house.

So I repeat: How much, in pounds sterling, is the current ceiling for benefits, per household?

ETA: Sorry to be so pedantic, but this is the whole subject of this thread, That the government are proposing a cap or ceiling on benefits, not a reduction to an already existing ceiling

Edited by Camoradi on Monday 23 January 15:10