Opposition grows to benefit cap
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16669850
What I really don't understand is why?
I'd prefer for this thread not to turn into a Daily Wail like thread, but I'm genuinely interested to hear from those who think the proposed changes are wrong, and if so, why you believe them to be wrong?
What I really don't understand is why?
I'd prefer for this thread not to turn into a Daily Wail like thread, but I'm genuinely interested to hear from those who think the proposed changes are wrong, and if so, why you believe them to be wrong?
If you're talking about the clergy then their opposition seems to be inclusion within the cap of child benefit which they think should be excluded. Child benefit is very low and the real issue seems to be housing costs. The actual recipient of unlimited benefits is apparently landlords. This seems to me to occur because LAs are required to house anybody who turns up. If they were allowed to redirect benefit seekers to other areas there would be no need for an absolute limit, because all LAs should seek to minimise these costs.
Edited by herewego on Sunday 22 January 13:32
I see they're worried about "Transitional arrangements" - why? They will have 12 months from when this law is put in place to put their house in order. That's plenty of time to cancel the Sky subscription, trade in the X5, move out of your 5 bedroom house into a 3 bedroom semi, and so on and so forth. 
paddyhasneeds said:
What I really don't understand is why?
I'd prefer for this thread not to turn into a Daily Wail like thread, but I'm genuinely interested to hear from those who think the proposed changes are wrong, and if so, why you believe them to be wrong?
Do people outside of Westminster and the BBC think the changes are wrong? I was hearing only this morning that people thought £26k was too high if anything.I'd prefer for this thread not to turn into a Daily Wail like thread, but I'm genuinely interested to hear from those who think the proposed changes are wrong, and if so, why you believe them to be wrong?
freecar said:
I predict this thread will not be full of grown up debate and conversation.
Instead it will devolve into a "benefit claimants are all scroungers who tell lies and get free flat screen tvs from our hard paid taxes" thread.
Hmm is there really any need for anyone to receive over £26k a year in benefits?Instead it will devolve into a "benefit claimants are all scroungers who tell lies and get free flat screen tvs from our hard paid taxes" thread.
I can't see any justification at all, apart from disability related claimants.
paddyhasneeds said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16669850
What I really don't understand is why?
I'd prefer for this thread not to turn into a Daily Wail like thread, but I'm genuinely interested to hear from those who think the proposed changes are wrong, and if so, why you believe them to be wrong?
I think most normal folk think it's over generous , sadly the people who have a magic friend and think money grows in a plate think the feckless work shy of london should continue to receive more benifits than an average working member of socity earns, maybe the clergy would like to make up the differnce!!! 60% god botherer tax anyone????What I really don't understand is why?
I'd prefer for this thread not to turn into a Daily Wail like thread, but I'm genuinely interested to hear from those who think the proposed changes are wrong, and if so, why you believe them to be wrong?
Edited by powerstroke on Sunday 22 January 13:58
powerstroke said:
paddyhasneeds said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16669850
What I really don't understand is why?
I'd prefer for this thread not to turn into a Daily Wail like thread, but I'm genuinely interested to hear from those who think the proposed changes are wrong, and if so, why you believe them to be wrong?
I think most normal folk think it's over generous , sadly the people who have a magic friend and think money grows in a plate think the feckless work shy should continue to receive more benifits than a working member of socity earns, maybe the clergy would like to make up the differnce!!! 60% god botherer tax any one????What I really don't understand is why?
I'd prefer for this thread not to turn into a Daily Wail like thread, but I'm genuinely interested to hear from those who think the proposed changes are wrong, and if so, why you believe them to be wrong?
"But that's not what tomorrow's debate is about; tomorrow's debate is about children.
herewego said:
Bishop Packer told Radio 4's Sunday programme: "Certainly there is a real concern about the sheer amount of money from the welfare system which is going through and simply being paid out in rent.
"But that's not what tomorrow's debate is about; tomorrow's debate is about children.
That seems a valid concern. £26k, presumably tax-free, does seem a large amount."But that's not what tomorrow's debate is about; tomorrow's debate is about children.
I don't doubt that for some people they might need to move or change their lifestyles, but that doesn't really answer why some people think the cap is too low?
paddyhasneeds said:
herewego said:
Bishop Packer told Radio 4's Sunday programme: "Certainly there is a real concern about the sheer amount of money from the welfare system which is going through and simply being paid out in rent.
"But that's not what tomorrow's debate is about; tomorrow's debate is about children.
That seems a valid concern. £26k, presumably tax-free, does seem a large amount."But that's not what tomorrow's debate is about; tomorrow's debate is about children.
I don't doubt that for some people they might need to move or change their lifestyles, but that doesn't really answer why some people think the cap is too low?
vonuber said:
But Shirley the Private Entrepreneurial Sector (landlords) are benefiting through the rents they collect (which they then pay taxes on) thus meaning it is clever Private Sector Business AND helps Tax take and thus a PH Good Thing.
Continue the circle though, private landlords pay tax, the tax is used to pay housing benefit, the money is taxed. No one is creating anything of added value here. Additionally the rents are too high in the first place, and in some instances the housing is being re let for profit by the individual receiving benefits.
This culture has to change,
davepoth said:
I see they're worried about "Transitional arrangements" - why? They will have 12 months from when this law is put in place to put their house in order. That's plenty of time to cancel the Sky subscription, trade in the X5, move out of your 5 bedroom house into a 3 bedroom semi, and so on and so forth.
Indeed, i lost my job recently and there were no "transitional arrangements. I simply stopped being paid anything, and recieve £70 a week in jobseekers. My outgoings are about 2k a month.0000 said:
Do people outside of Westminster and the BBC think the changes are wrong? I was hearing only this morning that people thought £26k was too high if anything.
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. 98elise said:
davepoth said:
I see they're worried about "Transitional arrangements" - why? They will have 12 months from when this law is put in place to put their house in order. That's plenty of time to cancel the Sky subscription, trade in the X5, move out of your 5 bedroom house into a 3 bedroom semi, and so on and so forth.
Indeed, i lost my job recently and there were no "transitional arrangements. I simply stopped being paid anything, and recieve £70 a week in jobseekers. My outgoings are about 2k a month.this is one of the arguments against introducing a benefit cap - bit long but worth a read, imho. You can, of course, still agree with the cap...
http://redbrickblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/homel...
Homelessness and the Total Benefit Cap
Posted on January 4, 2012 by stevehilditch
As the Welfare Reform Bill returns to the House of Lords, it is becoming ever more obvious that the Tories and LibDems have no idea what they are doing and the damage they will cause.
We have covered the Bill before on Red Brick, for example here and here, but it is emerging that the total Household Benefit Cap will possibly be the most damaging change of all. And it is the least well understood.
In theory the cap is, according to DWP’s impact assessment: ‘a cap on the total amount of benefit that working-age people can receive so that households on out of work benefits will no longer receive more in benefit than the average weekly wage earned by working households.’ The limit, expected to be around £350 a week for a single person and £500 a week for families with children, not only includes out-of-work benefits like Jobseekers Allowance but also benefits which are available in and out of work like housing benefit and benefits that are available universally like Child Benefit.
The comparison with ‘the average weekly wage’ immediately falls down because in-work benefits are excluded from the calculation. It is not a like for like comparison of household income. It’s a crude and vindictive policy that can only have been invented by drunkards after a bad night on the ale, which makes it all the more regrettable that Liam Byrne has supported the principle. The only defence of his position is that the line that people on benefits shouldn’t get more than people in work spins well.
However the real disgrace is that Iain Duncan Smith and his Department are not able to say what impact the policy will have and on whom. Their estimate is that around 50,000 families will receive less benefit because of the cap (it only applies to those of working age). They admit, as with many of their tax and spending cuts policies, that the biggest impact will be on the larger families – over 80% of those affected will have 3 or more children. On average, household losses are expected to average £93 per week. 35% will lose more than £100 per week.
DWP estimated, in response to Parliamentary Questions, that 70% of those affected would be social tenants leaving 30% (around 15,000) as private tenants. These estimates are counter-intuitive and extraordinary given the importance of housing benefit in the calculation of the cap and the huge difference between private and social rents, and they led frontbencher Karen Buck MP on a voyage of discovery about the statistics and the relationship between the new cap rule and other statutory duties. Well, given the lack of answers, it has been more of a voyage of non-discovery.
Eric Pickles has already accepted that the cap will cause about 20,000 extra homelessness acceptances on top of the 20,000 extra expected due to the other housing benefit changes. That’s a lot. Homeless households placed in temporary accommodation in the private sector by their local authority are subject to the cap. Their rents are high and they are often unable to work because of the disruption caused by homelessness. Previously they may have been waiting for a social rented flat, now more likely they will be waiting for their local authority to discharge its duty by finding them a suitable letting in the private sector. There are 49,000 households in TA in England, nearly 36,000 in London. Many of these are likely to come up against the cap. However DWP cannot even say if such households have been counted in the 70% (social tenants) or the 30% (private tenants). If it is the latter, the figures just do not add up, given how many ‘ordinary’ private tenants in inner London will also come up against the cap – after all, unemployed people living in mansions in posh bits of London are supposedly the primary target of the policy.
My understanding of the homelessness legislation is that any shortfall between housing benefit receivable and the cost of temporary accommodation is met by the council concerned. So any existing homeless household in TA that falls foul of the cap would have the excess charged to the council’s General Fund rather than to the housing benefit budget, not something that councils will welcome. And when the council is seeking suitable accommodation for the family, it will only be able to discharge its duty if the accommodation is affordable. If the family is subject to the cap, the council might have real difficulty in making such accommodation available.
Similarly complicated considerations will apply for any private tenant falling foul of the cap. If they can no longer pay their rent, they are threatened with homelessness for arrears. If the reason for the arrears is the withdrawal of housing benefit, the council would seem unlikely to me to be able to argue intentionality. The household will have to be accepted as homeless and the same complicated arrangements for TA and for the discharge of the council’s duty will ensue.
The Government does not yet seem to have decided, if a household is subject to the cap, which benefit they will actually lose. Until Universal Credit comes in, the cap system will be administered as part of the housing benefit system. But could they decide that, to make up the average £93 loss, the family is effectively losing its Child Benefit, thereby protecting its housing benefit? That would effectively end Child Benefit as a universal allowance. Or will housing benefit always be the variable sum? In which case how will councils discharge their homelessness duties where they have to secure accommodation that is affordable? The Government’s belief that ‘affordable rent’ properties will be offered to the same profile of people as ‘social rent’ properties is now even more questionable.
The implications of all of this seem to be lost on the Government, at least in their public pronouncements. There would seem to me to be new incentives for households to seek the limited protection offered by the homelessness legislation and, for example, always insist on making a formal application under the legislation rather than accepting an informal arrangement though the prevention and relief of homelessness duties.
Finally, it will come down to money. There seems a risk that the impact of the cap will bear down only on housing. For households in TA this would seem to imply a transfer of cost from the national HB budget to the local General Fund – not welcome. There will be many more people moving through the homelessness system and councils will find it exceptionally difficult to secure accommodation for families subject to the cap. For some families with children facing the cap there will be strong pressure to resort to s17 Childrens Act payments to maintain the family in their accommodation rather than face the prospect of taking children into care. Many councils will face the possibility that the only way to find affordable housing for a family subject to the cap will be to move them a long way away. And that will pile costs on to the receiving councils.
I can find no evidence that any of these complexities have been considered by Ministers, at least in public, and they divert any attempt to pin them down because statistics aren’t available. As they pursue the little ideological tantrum that produced the idea of the cap in the first place, they have a responsibility to do some research and explain who will be affected and what will happen to them.
http://redbrickblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/homel...
Homelessness and the Total Benefit Cap
Posted on January 4, 2012 by stevehilditch
As the Welfare Reform Bill returns to the House of Lords, it is becoming ever more obvious that the Tories and LibDems have no idea what they are doing and the damage they will cause.
We have covered the Bill before on Red Brick, for example here and here, but it is emerging that the total Household Benefit Cap will possibly be the most damaging change of all. And it is the least well understood.
In theory the cap is, according to DWP’s impact assessment: ‘a cap on the total amount of benefit that working-age people can receive so that households on out of work benefits will no longer receive more in benefit than the average weekly wage earned by working households.’ The limit, expected to be around £350 a week for a single person and £500 a week for families with children, not only includes out-of-work benefits like Jobseekers Allowance but also benefits which are available in and out of work like housing benefit and benefits that are available universally like Child Benefit.
The comparison with ‘the average weekly wage’ immediately falls down because in-work benefits are excluded from the calculation. It is not a like for like comparison of household income. It’s a crude and vindictive policy that can only have been invented by drunkards after a bad night on the ale, which makes it all the more regrettable that Liam Byrne has supported the principle. The only defence of his position is that the line that people on benefits shouldn’t get more than people in work spins well.
However the real disgrace is that Iain Duncan Smith and his Department are not able to say what impact the policy will have and on whom. Their estimate is that around 50,000 families will receive less benefit because of the cap (it only applies to those of working age). They admit, as with many of their tax and spending cuts policies, that the biggest impact will be on the larger families – over 80% of those affected will have 3 or more children. On average, household losses are expected to average £93 per week. 35% will lose more than £100 per week.
DWP estimated, in response to Parliamentary Questions, that 70% of those affected would be social tenants leaving 30% (around 15,000) as private tenants. These estimates are counter-intuitive and extraordinary given the importance of housing benefit in the calculation of the cap and the huge difference between private and social rents, and they led frontbencher Karen Buck MP on a voyage of discovery about the statistics and the relationship between the new cap rule and other statutory duties. Well, given the lack of answers, it has been more of a voyage of non-discovery.
Eric Pickles has already accepted that the cap will cause about 20,000 extra homelessness acceptances on top of the 20,000 extra expected due to the other housing benefit changes. That’s a lot. Homeless households placed in temporary accommodation in the private sector by their local authority are subject to the cap. Their rents are high and they are often unable to work because of the disruption caused by homelessness. Previously they may have been waiting for a social rented flat, now more likely they will be waiting for their local authority to discharge its duty by finding them a suitable letting in the private sector. There are 49,000 households in TA in England, nearly 36,000 in London. Many of these are likely to come up against the cap. However DWP cannot even say if such households have been counted in the 70% (social tenants) or the 30% (private tenants). If it is the latter, the figures just do not add up, given how many ‘ordinary’ private tenants in inner London will also come up against the cap – after all, unemployed people living in mansions in posh bits of London are supposedly the primary target of the policy.
My understanding of the homelessness legislation is that any shortfall between housing benefit receivable and the cost of temporary accommodation is met by the council concerned. So any existing homeless household in TA that falls foul of the cap would have the excess charged to the council’s General Fund rather than to the housing benefit budget, not something that councils will welcome. And when the council is seeking suitable accommodation for the family, it will only be able to discharge its duty if the accommodation is affordable. If the family is subject to the cap, the council might have real difficulty in making such accommodation available.
Similarly complicated considerations will apply for any private tenant falling foul of the cap. If they can no longer pay their rent, they are threatened with homelessness for arrears. If the reason for the arrears is the withdrawal of housing benefit, the council would seem unlikely to me to be able to argue intentionality. The household will have to be accepted as homeless and the same complicated arrangements for TA and for the discharge of the council’s duty will ensue.
The Government does not yet seem to have decided, if a household is subject to the cap, which benefit they will actually lose. Until Universal Credit comes in, the cap system will be administered as part of the housing benefit system. But could they decide that, to make up the average £93 loss, the family is effectively losing its Child Benefit, thereby protecting its housing benefit? That would effectively end Child Benefit as a universal allowance. Or will housing benefit always be the variable sum? In which case how will councils discharge their homelessness duties where they have to secure accommodation that is affordable? The Government’s belief that ‘affordable rent’ properties will be offered to the same profile of people as ‘social rent’ properties is now even more questionable.
The implications of all of this seem to be lost on the Government, at least in their public pronouncements. There would seem to me to be new incentives for households to seek the limited protection offered by the homelessness legislation and, for example, always insist on making a formal application under the legislation rather than accepting an informal arrangement though the prevention and relief of homelessness duties.
Finally, it will come down to money. There seems a risk that the impact of the cap will bear down only on housing. For households in TA this would seem to imply a transfer of cost from the national HB budget to the local General Fund – not welcome. There will be many more people moving through the homelessness system and councils will find it exceptionally difficult to secure accommodation for families subject to the cap. For some families with children facing the cap there will be strong pressure to resort to s17 Childrens Act payments to maintain the family in their accommodation rather than face the prospect of taking children into care. Many councils will face the possibility that the only way to find affordable housing for a family subject to the cap will be to move them a long way away. And that will pile costs on to the receiving councils.
I can find no evidence that any of these complexities have been considered by Ministers, at least in public, and they divert any attempt to pin them down because statistics aren’t available. As they pursue the little ideological tantrum that produced the idea of the cap in the first place, they have a responsibility to do some research and explain who will be affected and what will happen to them.
rover 623gsi said:
this is one of the arguments against introducing a benefit cap - bit long but worth a read, imho. You can, of course, still agree with the cap...
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?
rover 623gsi said:
this is one of the arguments against introducing a benefit cap - bit long but worth a read, imho. You can, of course, still agree with the cap...
http://redbrickblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/homel...
It’s a crude and vindictive policy that can only have been invented by drunkards after a bad night on the ale, which makes it all the more regrettable that Liam Byrne has supported the principle. The only defence of his position is that the line that people on benefits shouldn’t get more than people in work spins well.
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. http://redbrickblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/homel...
It’s a crude and vindictive policy that can only have been invented by drunkards after a bad night on the ale, which makes it all the more regrettable that Liam Byrne has supported the principle. The only defence of his position is that the line that people on benefits shouldn’t get more than people in work spins well.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff