Benefit cap goes before the Lords.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

I think you missed the point that -
the landlords are getting it

The level of payments for food and utilities is about the same as workers have - probably less, unless they have many children.

I missing no point.

People are getting accommodation.

Accommodation they couldn't afford to rent if they were in work.

Paid for by people, who couldn't afford the rent to live there.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy

I agreed about the apparent injustice of people having wide-screen TVs, etc whilst on benefits. The road to unhappiness comes from comparing our own lives with those of others. There will always be someone better off or appearing to get away with it. At the end of the day the Health Visitor will have a sense of purpose and self-esteem in their job which the person on benefits will never have. And that is more important in life than a wide-screen TV. Glib, I know, but I think it's true.

While I agree that happiness does not lie in the pursuit of material things, and looking at another persons life style and comparing it with your own has never been something that I have done - I prefer to follow the beat of my own drum....and yes my health visitor friend has a sense of purpose, in that she is making a difference to the lives of children within poor families....this does not pay her electric bill or her mortgage.......like everyone she is struggling with family bills and the rising cost of everything. While these people she visits seem to have no worries, they smoke, they drink they have holidays. Their rent is paid. Their council tax too. What she finds galling is the fact that she turns out whatever the weather to do her job, hauls herself out of her bed on frosty mornings to visit them in their cosy life that is being paid for by her taxes.

She doesn't want to be like them....she wants them to be more like her...responsible for their lives, their finances. She would like them to cut their coat according to the cloth. Is that too much to ask......a modicum of fairness.

[garinda]

Landlords set rents on supply and demand.

[MargaretR]

Another proposed cut - abolition of the Social Fund.
People who want to move to cheaper accommodation (if available in their locality) cannot get a loan to finance removal expenses.

[Gordon Booth]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

I think you missed the point that -
the landlords are getting it

The level of payments for food and utilities is about the same as workers have - probably less, unless they have many children.

No, that is the point-or part of it.With a total cap of £26000(£35000 before tax) people won't be able to claim for sky high rents so they can live among the millionaires or at least in the centre of one of the most property expensive cities in the world! Either the landlords cut the rents and stop ripping taxpayers off or the claimants will have to move.Unfortunate but reasonable. Could anyone(working or otherwise) on Accyweb afford to live in Westminster?
As for removal expenses- if you can't afford a removal van out of £26000/yr you'd better cancel your Sky tv and get organised.

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth

As for removal expenses- if you can't afford a removal van out of £26000/yr you'd better cancel your Sky tv and get organised.

Income support rates -
Welfare Rights: Benefits Guides

couple £102.75 + £57.57 per child
A typical family of a couple and two children = £217.89 x 52 = £11,330.28 (£217.89 per week)
Anything paid out above that goes to landlord and council tax.

[Margaret Pilkington]

So they are living rent and council tax free...that lifts quite a big burden from the finances doesn't it?

[MargaretR]

I have browsed rent prices in our area to decide what this typical family of 4 would need.
3 bed semi - rent £500 per month
council tax band C - £114 per month
--------
£614 per month (£141.69 per week)

I have entered these hypothetical figures at the www.entitledto website and it has revealed an income of £390.77 per week as 'entitlement' (including housing costs)
https://www.turn2us.entitledto.co.uk...5-458d197c6dbb

£390.77 per week = £20,320 per year, so this family in this area won't be affected by the Cap, but with only a spare margin of £5680 (£109 per week), I suspect the number of families affected will increase the more south you apply the calculation, the London families being hardest hit.

Maybe we should warn our councils to expect a mass migration of homeless families into our 'cheap living' area
Welfare caps in London provide richest pickings for Conservatives | Politics | guardian.co.uk


Fruit and vegetable consumption by poorer families falls 30%, figures show | Society | The Guardian
Families are now spending about £24.50 per person a week on food, equating to about £98 for a family of four. ( presumably toiletries and cleaning chemicals are extra to that.)
Whatever is left pays water rates, gas, electricity, transport, clothing and possibly some entertainment.

I doubt there will be enough left to finance any removal costs.

[jaysay]

I'm off line for two days and I've missed all the fun

[cmonstanley]

They are moving all the loans to the council with a set limit so when it runs out, it runs out.get ready for the crime rate to rise

[Less]

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy

As I understand it, a large proportion of the £26,000 plus benefits is made up of Child Benefit, which the person would be getting if they were working anyway. That's why the govt want to include child benefit in the £26,000 calculation or else otherwise it would not be worth implementing the reforms.

If the person is living in London I don't think £26,000 is excessive. I would find it very difficult to raise a family there on that. Again, as I think has been mentioned, the problem is a lack of affordable social housing (even in the most prosperous areas).

I agreed about the apparent injustice of people having wide-screen TVs, etc whilst on benefits. The road to unhappiness comes from comparing our own lives with those of others. There will always be someone better off or appearing to get away with it. At the end of the day the Health Visitor will have a sense of purpose and self-esteem in their job which the person on benefits will never have. And that is more important in life than a wide-screen TV. Glib, I know, but I think it's true.

Why can't they get on their metophorical 1980's bike and move to an area they can afford?

Our P.M. Expects the rest of us to stop griping about cuts to welfare and go get a job that doesn't exist, surely, if what he says is a practicle solution, mine should also be considered?

Well perhaps not, I'm not ****ing against the wind to keep myself in some sort of power.

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

They are moving all the loans to the council with a set limit so when it runs out, it runs out.get ready for the crime rate to rise

That transferred money is not 'ring fenced' - many councils have already said they will be spending it 'elswhere'.

[ToffeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Less

Why can't they get on their metophorical 1980's bike and move to an area they can afford?

Our P.M. Expects the rest of us to stop griping about cuts to welfare and go get a job that doesn't exist, surely, if what he says is a practicle solution, mine should also be considered?

Well perhaps not, I'm not ****ing against the wind to keep myself in some sort of power.

Because that would create even more ghettos of rich and poor.

Plus it may mean uprooting kids from school.

Plus the poorer areas are likely have less jobs so they are less likely to get off benefits.

Plus they would have to spend more money to commute to the any work making it less affordable to get off benefits.

It's vicious circle. The Tories are targeting benefit 'scroungers' to distract from the fact that for the majority of the population living standards and wages will be falling in the coming years.

[cmonstanley]

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy

Because that would create even more ghettos of rich and poor.

Plus it may mean uprooting kids from school.

Plus the poorer areas are likely have less jobs so they are less likely to get off benefits.

Plus they would have to spend more money to commute to the any work making it less affordable to get off benefits.

It's vicious circle. The Tories are targeting benefit 'scroungers' to distract from the fact that for the majority of the population living standards and wages will be falling in the coming years.

agreed.the national minimum wage will be next.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I think it is hard to distract the population from something that is self evident.......it is fooling(distracting) no-one.
People travel to where the work is.......look at the Polish workers who come here.
Why do they come? They come for the jobs(oh,yes...they can claim benefits too - to send home, where the money they have earned here is worth more in material terms)
If you have to uproot children, then so be it. Children are not the delicate little flowers that we presume them to be......many children were uprooted in 1939......they survived didn't they?
Sometimes hardships are what makes a person.......finds their inner strengths....but no, we no longer have that indomitable spirit do we? It seems that we have a nation softened by easy lives.....lives where someone else take the responsibility for things. This is the product of the nanny state. No-one has the get up and go to do things for themselves.