Benefit cap of £26k?

[TennisGal]

Oh no,I agree it's a great way to make landlords stop...but there are other things that contribute to high costs of living, and £26 k in, say, London is hard for a family. I think looking at individual cases could help...?

 

[feeble]

So we (as a country) are supposed to cut back on everything, loose our jobs, public services and benefits, but people living in London should receive more than the national average wage because 'its hard for them'

I dont buy that myself.

 

[TennisGal]

So, what's supposed to happen to these people? We aree all affected by the recession, but surely benefits go to those who need them the most? My example of London was purely that...an example...I fully support shaking up the benefits system and putting caps in place. I do, however, think there are several situations where £26k isn't enough. In certain situations, it could also be reduced! Buuut...large families...expensive areas of the country etc. I don't think 'one size fits all' is the way to go.

 

[lesleyann]

So, what's supposed to happen to these people? We aree all affected by the recession, but surely benefits go to those who need them the most? My example of London was purely that...an example...I fully support shaking up the benefits system and putting caps in place. I do, however, think there are several situations where £26k isn't enough. In certain situations, it could also be reduced! Buuut...large families...expensive areas of the country etc. I don't think 'one size fits all' is the way to go.

But surely its not the tax payers responsibility to pick up the tab for those who have Large familys because they dont work Im not talking those who have a big family while working them lose everything Im talking about those who see benefits as a way of living forever and because benefits go up everytime you have another child why stop?

Why should someone on benefits be allowed to have more children because they will get more money yet say a couple earning 40k could not afford to have more even if it was a life long dream to have a family of say 6?

 

[Ju_bubbs]

The amount of extra money given out for an extra child, is by no means enough money to cover the cost of an extra child, let alone anything else.. I very much doubt people are having a 4th, 5th, 6th child just for extra benefits... Yes I'll be getting more benefits when my 5th is born, BUT when you weigh it up with the extra my 5th baby is going to cost me, I'll be living on less money than I am now, for example.

ETA: I'm not complaining about not getting enough benefit money by the way! Just pointing out that anyone having lots of kids 'just for the benefits' wouldn't be financially better off!

 

[TennisGal]

^^ no, I agree with the instance of people choosing not to work...am more thinking about those who are trying, but can't get work and have high outgoings with family, housing etc. it must be desperately hard.

 

[KittyVentura]

Some families genuinely do have more children for the benefits. I am talking extreme cases... but my mum was one of them. She had my little brother because my big brother was turning 16 and she didn't want her money to drop... but we were neglected and she did NOT spend that money on us. I mean my sisters and I shared undies... some of mine as I grew were handed from my mum. We were often without heating and lived on toast a lot... bullied for dressing in ragged clothes and covered in lice... unclean because my mum couldn't afford the extra electricity to put the immersion on for us to have hot water.

My mum spent her benefit money on weed and booze... which she ALWAYS had... even when we only had bread to eat for the week.

I know that is an extreme case but I am just defending that is really does happen... I knew of several other families in the run-down estate we grew up on that did this too xx

 

[lesleyann]

The amount of extra money given out for an extra child, is by no means enough money to cover the cost of an extra child, let alone anything else.. I very much doubt people are having a 4th, 5th, 6th child just for extra benefits... Yes I'll be getting more benefits when my 5th is born, BUT when you weigh it up with the extra my 5th baby is going to cost me, I'll be living on less money than I am now, for example.

ETA: I'm not complaining about not getting enough benefit money by the way! Just pointing out that anyone having lots of kids 'just for the benefits' wouldn't be financially better off!

Oh yeah it never fully covers it but people do it sadly, however I know 1 women who has got everyone of her kids assesed as ADHD for extra money yet she read all the signs on the internet and told her children how to act. Although her kids are also riddled in nits EWW while she sods of with a new bf!

 

[TennisGal]

Kitty, That's awful I don't doubt for a second that happens, but I really feel for those who end up in impossibly hard situations. That's why I'd advocate a more case by case analysis, well, maybe just a bit more investigation.

I am by no means supporting people claiming benefits illegally or for lazy / personal gain reasons...just I'd rather get rid of those people, and give more to those who are honest and need them!

 

[feeble]

Some families genuinely do have more children for the benefits. I am talking extreme cases... but my mum was one of them. She had my little brother because my big brother was turning 16 and she didn't want her money to drop... but we were neglected and she did NOT spend that money on us. I mean my sisters and I shared undies... some of mine as I grew were handed from my mum. We were often without heating and lived on toast a lot... bullied for dressing in ragged clothes and covered in lice... unclean because my mum couldn't afford the extra electricity to put the immersion on for us to have hot water.

My mum spent her benefit money on weed and booze... which she ALWAYS had... even when we only had bread to eat for the week.

I know that is an extreme case but I am just defending that is really does happen... I knew of several other families in the run-down estate we grew up on that did this too xx

Firstly, i am sorry to use your example here but it highlights my point;

This is EXACTLY the problem, people who receive benefits but yet do not spend them on the family, people who dont mind their kids having ill-fitting shoes so that they may enjoy Sky TV for example, or choose to eat badly because they want to smoke/drink etc

We are in an unfortunate situation where because my husband earns less than the minimum wage, we actually receive less money in total (and this includes HB and tax credits) than a family in the same situation fully on benefits would receive.

Yet despite that, we have enough money to eat, to clothe Jasper (from charity shops and ebay sure but to clothe him all the same) and to feed him and clothe him WELL...

Unfortunately there are many with different priorities, families who parents buy drink and other drugs (including nicotine) before buying a weekly/monthly shop.

Or who buy clothes for themselves above clothes for their kids, who have cars with all the costs involved with running them when actually, if you are receiving family benefit, you are receiving it for your family, not for your own lifestyle.

The fact is, if the housing benefit amount went down in parts of London, the rents would go down, you wouldnt see a mass removal of people because actually, there wouldnt be folk to fill the space.

If the government put a cap on, the landlords will adhere to that.

 

[TennisGal]

I think we are actually in agreement, I'm just adding on that for the people in genuine dire straits..,and who are honest...case by case would work better.

The more we eradicate benefits a users, the more we have for those who really need them.

 

[feeble]

Kitty, That's awful I don't doubt for a second that happens, but I really feel for those who end up in impossibly hard situations. That's why I'd advocate a more case by case analysis, well, maybe just a bit more investigation.

I am by no means supporting people claiming benefits illegally or for lazy / personal gain reasons...just I'd rather get rid of those people, and give more to those who are honest and need them!

get rid of them all or just the parents?

sorry just highlighting that its not that simple xx

I would advocate food vouchers rather than 'money' i would have electricity and gas removed from benefits before they became 'money' and i would put onerous on the companies/supermarkets etc to give massive discounts to the government for the food/electricity and gas that was being provided

tougher measures on banks that lend to those who are vunerable/unfortunate

I would also want to see a system whereby if you were claiming benefits soley (not working) you had to provide some proof of birth control before receiving benefits (i know, extreme hey, but i would)

 

[Eternal]

I support the cap! I mean my husband earns about 35k a year (and thats gone and is still going down like a lot of people so boy are we finding it hard) and we DO NOT get that sort of money! We dont get benefits and some months we dont get £400 a week, and we are WORKING for that money (after tax of course).

I agree with a benefits system, but its there to help get people through and back into work, NOT for them to live comfortably. I really feel for all the people who are left on their own by an ex or losing their job, but more of us might as well if thats the sort of money they get.

As for it not being enough in London, well there are plenty of people who DO WORK and survive on LESS than that. But I could support an extra amount given to London BUT i think that sort of money is way too much!

Is that the sort of money that goes through their bank accounts? or is it paid directly to the landlord?

Do people on those sort of benefits have to pay council tax? water rates? electric etc? or is that all included as well.

I know a LOT of people who have NEVER EVER worked, I am sorry but thats wrong. Unless someone has a disability then its wrong, it wouldn't have happened 50 years ago. I am a SAHM which I see as a luxury but I also see it as unfair too, why the hell should some people get that sort of money when I cant afford to work due to childcare costs. If people are allowed that sort of money to stay at home then I want the government to pay my childcare costs so i can work and at least I would be contributing back.

I really hope this goes through although unless the cap is a lot less than that it wont encourage people back to work. I actually cant beleive the government gives £26,000 a year to people to stay at home and screws those of us who do with taking away child benefit and reducing the 40% threshold.

 

[Ju_bubbs]

Some people really do amaze me!! The kind of people in the above stories, I mean! I'm counting down the days till either my older children are old enough to not need childcare, or til the babies can start pre-school, so that I can get out to work without childcare costs that I can't afford!!! lol!

Whats more disgusting than benefit cheats I think.. is the absent fathers of these large families, or even small familes for that matter.. the government need to put a LOT more effort into making them help provide for their children, rather than benefits doing it all!!

 

[TennisGal]

Kitty, That's awful I don't doubt for a second that happens, but I really feel for those who end up in impossibly hard situations. That's why I'd advocate a more case by case analysis, well, maybe just a bit more investigation.

I am by no means supporting people claiming benefits illegally or for lazy / personal gain reasons...just I'd rather get rid of those people, and give more to those who are honest and need them!

get rid of them all or just the parents?

sorry just highlighting that its not that simple xx

I would advocate food vouchers rather than 'money' i would have electricity and gas removed from benefits before they became 'money' and i would put onerous on the companies/supermarkets etc to give massive discounts to the government for the food/electricity and gas that was being provided

tougher measures on banks that lend to those who are vunerable/unfortunate

I would also want to see a system whereby if you were claiming benefits soley (not working) you had to provide some proof of birth control before receiving benefits (i know, extreme hey, but i would)

That's all sensible, unfortunately, when children are involved...and there are irresponsible parents, it makes sense to bring in fairly draconian measures. But (you knew there'd be one, hey ) I still think case by case to evaluate circumstances. Chances are it would cost too much to do that...

 

[feeble]

ah but look at my situation, i would be around £150 better off per month if my hubby didnt live with us, it is our love for each other that has kept us together but its not financial the best thing for us.

 

[TennisGal]

I need to get properly involved with this in a wee while...eldest has just rubbed butter on the tv!

 

[feeble]

Kitty, That's awful I don't doubt for a second that happens, but I really feel for those who end up in impossibly hard situations. That's why I'd advocate a more case by case analysis, well, maybe just a bit more investigation.

I am by no means supporting people claiming benefits illegally or for lazy / personal gain reasons...just I'd rather get rid of those people, and give more to those who are honest and need them!

get rid of them all or just the parents?

sorry just highlighting that its not that simple xx

I would advocate food vouchers rather than 'money' i would have electricity and gas removed from benefits before they became 'money' and i would put onerous on the companies/supermarkets etc to give massive discounts to the government for the food/electricity and gas that was being provided

tougher measures on banks that lend to those who are vunerable/unfortunate

I would also want to see a system whereby if you were claiming benefits soley (not working) you had to provide some proof of birth control before receiving benefits (i know, extreme hey, but i would)

That's all sensible, unfortunately, when children are involved...and there are irresponsible parents, it makes sense to bring in fairly draconian measures. But (you knew there'd be one, hey ) I still think case by case to evaluate circumstances. Chances are it would cost too much to do that...

in a world of 'unfair' though, is that right?

that those on benefits are checked for 'fairness' and evaluated to check they are getting enough when those families on medium to high incomes with the same outgoings are offered no help at all?

there are always going to be those who fall in the 'shit' bit of the system but we cannot unfortunately protect everyone from that... its just not possible

 

[Eternal]

Kitty, That's awful I don't doubt for a second that happens, but I really feel for those who end up in impossibly hard situations. That's why I'd advocate a more case by case analysis, well, maybe just a bit more investigation.

I am by no means supporting people claiming benefits illegally or for lazy / personal gain reasons...just I'd rather get rid of those people, and give more to those who are honest and need them!

get rid of them all or just the parents?

sorry just highlighting that its not that simple xx

I would advocate food vouchers rather than 'money' i would have electricity and gas removed from benefits before they became 'money' and i would put onerous on the companies/supermarkets etc to give massive discounts to the government for the food/electricity and gas that was being provided

tougher measures on banks that lend to those who are vunerable/unfortunate

I would also want to see a system whereby if you were claiming benefits soley (not working) you had to provide some proof of birth control before receiving benefits (i know, extreme hey, but i would)

I totally agree with the food vouchers, I see benefits as a way to help people, provide for their needs and equip them to be able to get out of the situation they are in. I know that sounds unfair that some people though no fault of their own and the kids would not have the luxuries many take for granted, but at the end of the day, Internet is a luxury, SKY tv is a luxury, holidays (they are a massive luxury, one we cant afford and pay flippin 40% tax!!!!), new cars etc. If we keep pumping money into people on benefits then it will be so much harder for them to leave them behind, especially as somehow we are in a system where those on benefits are BETTER OFF than s a lot of working families.

Disability as see differently and they should have enough money to live to a normal standard of living, like minimum wage etc, but even still i think those claiming need investigating, my mum is disabled and really bad, yet if you read the forum she needs to fill in for disability, i guarantee that 90% of the claimants arnt anywhere near as bad as they have to make out on the forum.

 

[feeble]

I know people who have claimed disability for literally decades and yet they can dance round a festival, type away on the net all day, go to protests...

Incap has a lot of failings!