• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Benefit Caps: Good, bad or indifferent?

Status
Not open for further replies.

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,528
Location
Liskeard
See what you can get as a 23 year old for benifits, trust me, it isn't much!

Unless you have some kids, and then you do ok.
I know someone same age as me (23) with partner and 1 child who can't afford to work, unemployed he receives around 1500 month, if he works 40 hrs a week on min wage after tax and ni he'll get about 750 a month. Tax credits push him to just around a grand. Unemployed he gets 100% rent paid on top of this. Working as above he'll have to pay 350 a month of his 600 rent.
How is this system right?


Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Not really, means tested benefits are the minimum you need to live on (as defined by Parliament no less) and it follows if you get shared rate then you can't have a house since you'd be unable to afford it.
As I said, the shared rate only applies if you are single. If you are not or you have children then your local housing allowance will not be capped to this rate but to a higher rate.
 

table38

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
1,812
Location
Stalybridge
Not correct, there is a benefits cap for private tenants. It's the 30th percentile of the market rent or the shared accomodation rate if you are under 35 and single. Landlords can make more money by only renting to working tenants and so many won't rent to tenants claiming benefits. Further restricting benefits is not going to help here, all it will do is make landlords even less likely to rent to anyone on benefits as they are less likely to get all of their rent.

I thought that didn't start until April 2011? In fact, what I'm reading here suggests that it won't affect all tenants until January 2013.

(Sorry, I meant start for new tenants. Actually I worded that pathetically but I won't go and sneakily edit it now!)
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
I thought that didn't start until April 2011? In fact, what I'm reading here suggests that it won't affect all tenants until January 2013.
It started this month immediately for new tenants (I believe it was originally planned to be introduced in April this year but was changed to January) but it won't affect all tenants as you say until January 2013. However since the introduction of Local Housing Allowance in 2008 benefit has been capped to the market rates and under 25s were restricted to the shared room rate. Even before then the Single Room Rent rule applied to under 25s. It was quite some time back where housing benefit would cover the entire rent regardless of how high it was for everyone. The Single Room Rent rule itself was introduced by the Tories in 1996.
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
78,338
Location
Yorkshire
A cap of £26k seems totally reasonable to me. I do not understand how anyone can argue against that. I doubt there are many places in the world where such a huge amount would be given out to people in unfortunate circumstances. People who want more than £26k in benefits should actually consider themselves fortunate that they live in the UK, because in a lot of countries they would be far worse off.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,091
Location
Redcar
I know someone same age as me (23) with partner and 1 child who can't afford to work, unemployed he receives around 1500 month, if he works 40 hrs a week on min wage after tax and ni he'll get about 750 a month.

Which is why I'd be in favour of some sort of top up system of benefits whereby in this case (for example) he would get the job with £750 take home pay and the government would agree to 'top-up' his wage through benefits by another £750 mean he was still received the £1500 a month he is used to but is working for part of it (and that can only be a good thing for everyone) and the cost for the government is reduced by half. Of course if his earnings increase then the amount that the government 'tops-up' would decrease by the same amount until it reaches zero and he is self-sustaining.

Obviously this is very simplistic but something along these lines seems to be a no brainer to me as it would hopefully remove the problem of it being better financially to claim benefits than it is to work.

A cap of £26k seems totally reasonable to me. I do not understand how anyone can argue against that. I doubt there are many places in the world where such a huge amount would be given out to people in unfortunate circumstances. People who want more than £26k in benefits should actually consider themselves fortunate that they live in the UK, because in a lot of countries they would be far worse off.

Also this puts my view on the matter far better than I managed earlier.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
78,338
Location
Yorkshire
No, you aren't making sense at all now.
I think that about a significant number of posts by Zoe and I know you and I are not the only ones as some people have told me that.

There are times when I wonder if there is any subject that Zoe is apparently not an expert in.
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
You can, the shared accomodation rate only applies if you are single.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not correct, there is a benefits cap for private tenants. It's the 30th percentile of the market rent or the shared accomodation rate if you are under 35 and single. Landlords can make more money by only renting to working tenants and so many won't rent to tenants claiming benefits. Further restricting benefits is not going to help here, all it will do is make landlords even less likely to rent to anyone on benefits as they are less likely to get all of their rent.

Which is why I'd be in favour of some sort of top up system of benefits whereby in this case (for example) he would get the job with £750 take home pay and the government would agree to 'top-up' his wage through benefits by another £750 mean he was still received the £1500 a month he is used to but is working for part of it (and that can only be a good thing for everyone) and the cost for the government is reduced by half. Of course if his earnings increase then the amount that the government 'tops-up' would decrease by the same amount until it reaches zero and he is self-sustaining.

Obviously this is very simplistic but something along these lines seems to be a no brainer to me as it would hopefully remove the problem of it being better financially to claim benefits than it is to work.

That sounds like a good idea, a tapering system whereby you're better off in work. There is always going to be someone abusing the system and it'll never be stopped
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,665
Location
South Yorkshire
A cap of £26k seems totally reasonable to me. I do not understand how anyone can argue against that. I doubt there are many places in the world where such a huge amount would be given out to people in unfortunate circumstances. People who want more than £26k in benefits should actually consider themselves fortunate that they live in the UK, because in a lot of countries they would be far worse off.

You're quite right in saying this. Even in EU countries where a UK citizen would be entitled to live, work and potentially claim benefits, the welfare system in many of these countries does not cover what it does in the UK. Taking Spain as an example (which has a HDI* higher than the UK), their system for unemployment benefit works on the basis that if you haven't worked for at least a year in the past six, then you're simply not entitled to claim unemployment benefits.

*Human Development Index
 

Ivo

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Messages
7,307
Location
Bath (or Southend)
A cap of £26k seems totally reasonable to me. I do not understand how anyone can argue against that. I doubt there are many places in the world where such a huge amount would be given out to people in unfortunate circumstances. People who want more than £26k in benefits should actually consider themselves fortunate that they live in the UK, because in a lot of countries they would be far worse off.

I cannot help but agree here. I have never lived in a household that has had a genuine income of £26K per annum (by "genuine" I am not considering student loans), but until I started University money was never a major problem. If my mother can have two jobs in her mid-50s while suffering from on-off joint problems, why can these lazy people [like my brother :|] allow themselves to be stuck on benefits for so long? Answer - because others previously made it too easy for them. Indeed, even as a student I would happily try to get a job - but there's little point at present because there is nothing suitable (by which I mean adequately flexible to cater for University) but bar work around, and I will hold my hands up and state that I would never work behind a bar.

Under Labour we almost had a benefits culture; now is the time to stop that.

You're quite right in saying this. Even in EU countries where a UK citizen would be entitled to live, work and potentially claim benefits, the welfare system in many of these countries does not cover what it does in the UK. Taking Spain as an example (which has a HDI* higher than the UK), their system for unemployment benefit works on the basis that if you haven't worked for at least a year in the past six, then you're simply not entitled to claim unemployment benefits.

*Human Development Index

Such ideas are banned in this country. Didn't you know? They infract on "Human Rights" - the kind of human rights that only exist here, and then only in the minds of those who need them to exist.

It seems everyone is in agreement here for once. In post 5, richw mentioned the word 'budget' which appears to be something a lot of people are incapable of doing. We also hear a very over-used word - poverty. No doubt some people who claim to be living it have a mobile phone contract, Sky TV and such like. If anyone can afford them, they are not living in poverty!

Apparently theblackwatch spoke too soon...

I think that about a significant number of posts by Zoe and I know you and I are not the only ones as some people have told me that.

There are times when I wonder if there is any subject that Zoe is apparently not an expert in.

A little harsh on yorkie's part perhaps? I can't help but feel that this thread is starting to get out-of-hand.
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,665
Location
South Yorkshire
Such ideas are banned in this country. Didn't you know? They infract on "Human Rights" - the kind of human rights that only exist here, and then only in the minds of those who need them to exist.

Personally, it makes me laugh when people complain about "the nanny state", but still expect benefits to cover very large families. People do have a choice about how many kids they have. If they cannot afford to have children, then don't. It might seem against 'free will' in this modern world, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.
 

table38

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
1,812
Location
Stalybridge
Under Labour we almost had a benefits culture; now is the time to stop that.

I always felt that Labour tried to put in place a system so that no-one was disadvantaged by not having a job, which sounds perfectly laudable.

What perhaps they didn't consider was the unintended consequence of it becoming a disincentive to work.

Many people are now trapped in the benefits system simply because they could not afford to pay their rent themselves if they did get a job.

(Which leads us nicely back to Housing Benefit :))
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Would have been even worse if Labour handn't introduced the minimum wage.
 

Lampshade

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2009
Messages
3,777
Location
South London
Living in an area with rather high unemployment, the longest I have ever been unemployed is er.... 3 weeks...

Some people in the job centre have been signing on there for years, yet somehow, someone with sod all experience in the field he's applying for (Call Centre or Data Processing) manages to get into the job within a matter of weeks.

Wonder how I manage it and no-one else does...

*Any* work experience puts you at an infinite advantage, regardless of relevance. Then consider many jobs stipulate a full driving licence which I know you have and all things considered you had it a lot easier than most.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,784
Location
Somewhere, not in London
I only have a driving licence because I worked and paid for it... And that actually made sod all difference asside from two jobs I had at the latter end of the series of jobs over the last year, one because it was in Trafford Park, the other because it was, well, as a driver, and I was one of very few at that agency with a licence. (And experience driving commercials). It's more owning your own transport that matters, mobile carer work etc.

And how does one gain work experience?

When I was 16 I was working as a web designer and server engineer for UK Hosting Ltd, I worked it for £5/hr and worked my arse off, looked good on my CV and was a sodding good wage.

When I moved to Manchester I essentially had zero work experience, but got a job working on tills, did as many things there as I could.

Either way, I'd hardly say it's fair to say I've had it easy, I've worked bloody hard for a living since I was 16, and because of that, I have been able to find work.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Then consider many jobs stipulate a full driving licence which I know you have and all things considered you had it a lot easier than most.
Wouldn't have thought it would be too bad if you live in London though where there is good public transport unless of course the job involves driving. Not quite sure why Network Rail insist that signalmen have a full driving licence when you could live within walking distance of the signal box.
 

Lampshade

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2009
Messages
3,777
Location
South London
I always felt that Labour tried to put in place a system so that no-one was disadvantaged by not having a job, which sounds perfectly laudable.

What perhaps they didn't consider was the unintended consequence of it becoming a disincentive to work.

Labour knew full well what they were doing, they created welfare dependency in deprived areas along with gerrymandering to ensure that constituency will always vote them into power - 13 years is more than enough time to drill it into people that Labour is kind, caring and will keep the benefits coming whereas the Tories are evil, greedy and will snatch it all away. As long as people in these areas vote Labour, nothing will change as they can rely on a captive Labour vote just by dishing out benefits and the Tories won't do anything in areas which are in effect, Labour safe seats.
 
Last edited:

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
13 years is more than enough time to drill it into people that Labour is kind, caring and will keep the benefits coming whereas the Tories are evil, greedy and will snatch it all away. As long as people in these areas vote Labour, nothing will change as they can rely on a captive Labour vote just by dishing out benefits and the Tories won't do anything in areas which are in effect, Labour safe seats.

Sounds like you're saying that anyone who disagrees with you must be brainwashed... :roll:
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I know for a fact you can raise six kids, and raise them a damn sight better than a family would with 26k, with just 16k...

This is true, the above is actually quite a accurate picture of my family as I was growing up had a low income however as you've said above, my parents raised us kids a damn sight better then if growing up with a high income and money was no object.

As such, it's pushed me to work my ass off as I know the meaning of hard work.
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,892
Location
South Wales
I am on the fence so to speak about the benefits cap.

Both my parents are on benefits because they are both disabled and unable to work so I dont want them having to suffer because of some stupid people using the benfits system as a joke.

The reason however why I think a cap on benefits is good is because I am fed up of some people saying they dont work becase they earn more money on benefits.

I have been unemployed since I left Veolia and finished University and I have had problems finding work because of my age since I am only 23 and lot of operators wont employ me because of insurance risk's.

Another reason is that I have very little job experience because I spent a lot of my time looking after parents and concentrating on university work. At the moment I am doing a bit of work at a local shop to try and get myself more experience dealing with customers, so I hope that this will help boost my CV
 

BlythPower

Member
Joined
15 Jan 2009
Messages
864
Location
Kenilworth
Labour knew full well what they were doing, they created welfare dependency in deprived areas along with gerrymandering to ensure that constituency will always vote them into power - 13 years is more than enough time to drill it into people that Labour is kind, caring and will keep the benefits coming whereas the Tories are evil, greedy and will snatch it all away. As long as people in these areas vote Labour, nothing will change as they can rely on a captive Labour vote just by dishing out benefits and the Tories won't do anything in areas which are in effect, Labour safe seats.

Sorry to burst your Daily Mail bubble, but most of those people won't bother voting at all. :roll:
 

table38

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
1,812
Location
Stalybridge
Sorry to burst your Daily Mail bubble, but most of those people won't bother voting at all. :roll:

It won't make much difference if Scotland gets it's independence. The loss of 41 safe Labour seats at Westminster should put Labour out of power for the next 20 years or so :)
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,422
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
The reason however why I think a cap on benefits is good is because I am fed up of some people saying they don't work.... because they earn more money on benefits.

I am with you 100% on what you say at the end of that statement and unfortunately that view is now becoming enshrined as a mantra in areas where three consecutive generations have now lived solely within the benefits culture. An example of this was stated by a report as being the case in certain areas of Wythenshawe which is the largest social housing area in Western Europe.
 

chris89

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2009
Messages
1,371
Location
Somewhere
Nym said:
So working at a local shop isn't a job any more?

It would help if many shops were hiring especially if you dont live in towns etc.

Im in a simular postion to antony as my father receives DLA due to various problems which of course are private. He has looked for work ever since he was made redundant a few years ago, but no one wants to hire someone of his age. Benifits for him were the last thing to do.

Im on the edge with the cap. I myself believe the system needs to be overhauled first before making cuts/ limiting. Such areas would be housing benifits, especially if some people are able to get these massive houses.

Also the goverment says you live on X amount perweek and the amount you get cant exceed that. At least on income support and DLA. Yes many people will take the easy route for them though and some will cheat were possible.

Fine to say get a job, but especially in my area you need a car (which only highest rate DLA & Care part get) as the public transport is very poor here.

About things such as Sky Tv, consoles etc at least some people i know on benifts will save some of what they get to afford such things to give them some form of luxery items to out them though what can be very hard times.

Chris
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,230
Location
UK
You reckon?

I don't believe it but I can put together some very good arguments against the minimum wage ;)


For example how 16 year olds can legally get paid less than someone with the same experience who is 21+ despite this being in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (14c I think)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top