Opposition grows to benefit cap

[paddyhasneeds]

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?

[paddyhasneeds]

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.

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]

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?

[paddyhasneeds]

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.

[paddyhasneeds]

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.

[paddyhasneeds]

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.

[paddyhasneeds]

rover 623gsi said:

problem with that idea is that there are around four million households that receive some amount of housing benefit - and I don't think there are that amount of travelodge spaces!

I wasn't literally suggesting put people up in a Travelodge, my point was more the pile 'em high sell 'em cheap benefits of doing things in bulk.

I was also thinking mainly of families who would be homeless without housing benefit, not partial or "top up" (for lack of a better word) benefits.

Don't misunderstand me I'm not suggesting that all LA housing is fantastic, far from it, simply that it's a bit of an odd model that 1 family = 1 house/flat just for them.

[paddyhasneeds]

Deva Link said:

paddyhasneeds said:

I wasn't literally suggesting put people up in a Travelodge, my point was more the pile 'em high sell 'em cheap benefits of doing things in bulk.

Like workhouses (but without the 'work')?

There are people who think we should go back to that - the last Governemnt tried to introduce them several times for single mothers but I don't think they ever got off the ground (other than as part of the existing Foyer network).

If that's what you want to call it then yes, why not? "Workhouse" is a term that obviously has a historical term to it, I'd just think of it as bulk accommodation.

[paddyhasneeds]

Surely that's the problem though? You have people, admittedly a small minority, receiving more money annually just to pay their rent than some poor sod who goes out and works every hour imaginable makes in an entire year.

It's pretty obscene and, IMO, indefensible tbh. I know there are some who would level the same criticism at the CEO of that hard working persons employer, but rightly or wrongly that's the nature of business and almost always has been, whilst this benefits culture seems to be a very modern phenomenon.

[paddyhasneeds]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual

Wow. Unelected peers meddling in the business of elected MPs is one thing, unelected peers who are commanded what to do by the voice God almighty... now that's something I didn't know about.

[paddyhasneeds]

Mojooo said:

paddyhasneeds said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual

Wow. Unelected peers meddling in the business of elected MPs is one thing, unelected peers who are commanded what to do by the voice God almighty... now that's something I didn't know about.

Would it bad if they all agreed with your own views on the matter?

Oh I'm sure I'd be less put out by it, but I still don't agree with the principle. Tbh the thing that's surprised me is that I don't recall ever seeing the bishops in the Lords before. Of course that's not to say that they aren't usually there, simply that I don't recall seeing them in anything I've seen on the news before.