ah, it would appear the reason I failed to find a source was that it wasn't true. Hardly a surprise...
Whats really sick is this is likely to be an ex council house now in the hands of profiteering private landlords.
or just one who has the balls to charge more 🙂 rent than you do? 😆
jonba - Member
ah, it would appear the reason I failed to find a source was that it wasn't true. Hardly a surprise...
That's not the first time I've heard that today so don't worry! There's been some spinning going on.
Hmm, we (2+3 kids) live on about £26k a year, two earning, grace n favour house and tax credits all added up into one. Somehow we feed, clothe, go on a holiday, run a car etc. Heck, I even run a bike and a canoe. It is not easy, and we watch the pennies.
Now we use our cunning - house swaps for holidays, second hand clothes for kids etc, but we also buy good quality clothes; eat well with as much organic, local, 'good' food as possible. We have been given a second car, we watch an ancient telly and second had DVD; buy second hand furniture and look after the ageing sofa's. Our mobile contract is £5 for a basic phone a month, not bling etc etc.
But it works.
I do think that there are two fundamental issues causing problems:
1) Lack of affordable housing for families (much related to 'house blocking' IMO by those who should downsize or head off out of social housing, and by the fact that we sold off most most of the house a few years back (se TJ's post).
2) Looking at priorities in people's life - our old school in Sheffield used to have kids come in having not eaten breakfast as the parent 'couldn't afford the food' - yet same parent was stinking of alchohol each morning...I work with people who are skint, but have blinging iPhone, who don't look after thier stuff brilliantly and wonder why they need to change it more often. etc etc.
If i were made redundnet and got a job that pays less well than my current employment then i would have to move to reduce costs.
You'd probably get housing benefit to enable you to stay where you are.
Duncan Smith also dismissed this saying that the definition of homelessness used in government and by the authorities was families living in inadequate accommodation with children forced to share bedrooms rather than actually being on the street. He said this was "very misleading".
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/23/benefits-cap-poverty ]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/23/benefits-cap-poverty [/url]
Misleading it may be but it is very clearly worded.
I'm not silly enough to try and make you change your mind.
I don't think that benefits are a great lifestyle choice by any means.
I do think it's ridiculous to stand by arguments regarding keeping people in the village they grew up in and paying silly rents to do so.
Why?
Because, they're further away from where jobs and services are and they're not served by decent transport links, they're effectively in a benefits trap.
Plus, every person not on benefits has had to move to local towns where they can afford to rent or buy.
TSY - thats a tiny proportion of people - its families in the cities that will be affected mainly.
Have a read of this to see just how silly it is
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/22/housing-benefit-cap-62p-a-day
Richpenny - Member
Well apart from the fact that your other family might live there. And your friends. And your kids friends. And their schools. Nothing at all
Yes it is a shame But you simply have to go where the work is Do you not!
or are you a believer of sitting on your Arss and waiting for the right bus to stop ?
Torminalis - Member
'Duncan Smith also dismissed this saying that the definition of homelessness used in government and by the authorities was families living in inadequate accommodation with children forced to share bedrooms rather than actually being on the street. He said this was "very misleading".'http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/23/benefits-cap-poverty
Misleading it may be but it is very clearly worded.
That's not the definition though, it doesn't mention sharing bedrooms FFS. Overcrowding means people using kitchens, living rooms any space in the house as a place to sleep.
The Southern Yeti - MemberI do think it's ridiculous to stand by arguments regarding keeping people in the village they grew up in and paying silly rents to do so.
How many people does that apply to though? You're aware of 1?
Grantway - its probably where the work is as well - look at some of those Guardian links.
The people who this will affect mainly are families in the cities that have buoyant economies thus high rentals. they will be foreced to either move into overcrowded accomodation or to move to places with no work prospects.
The Southern Yeti - Member
Now I'm as limp wristed and liberal as the next man, but...
Why should someone on benefits get their rent paid in the lovely rural village in Oxfordshire that most can't afford to buy in?
Why should the kids of a hardworking family have to share a bedroom because their parents can't afford to move but those on benefits get upgraded automatically?
Why should having more and more kids entitle you to more and more money?
Why does the benefits system as it stands make me feel like a **** Tory?
I agree with the above
Calm down dear, I am not saying it was right. IDS clearly mentioned it to get the propaganda ball rolling and to win some of the hearts and minds of Middle England.
I reckon this bill would have massive public support, a relative small number of people would be forced to leave their homes, there was a clear mention of dispensation for special cases which appeared to mean there was a discretionary element to it. I reckon they are merely equipping the benefits officers with a bigger stick which is no bad thing.
That 62p per day thing is crazy and wrong.
It starts of with £500 per week and then takes £400+ off for a weeks rent .....no wonder theres on 62p left over.
Sorry but average rent for a nice 3bed semi in Leeds is £700 per month. Leeds has job prospects and decent education.
Tax payers in the north should not be subsidising expensive london rents.
Fair dues TeeJ, I did get distracted by the green Kit-Kat but the article makes sense... in summary the benefits system as it stands is not fair and surprise, surprise Georgies plan will make it even less so.
Lifer - I don't know a great many people on benefits TBH, so it's a pretty high % of the people on benfits I know. You've got to do a lot of convincing to make me believe that a benefits system that allows someone on them to be able to afford things that a worker can't.
TandemJeremy - Member
Grantway - its probably where the work is as well - look at some of those Guardian links.
The people who this will affect mainly are families in the cities that have buoyant economies thus high rentals. they will be foreced to either move into overcrowded accomodation or to move to places with no work prospects.
I agree on some of what you are saying But If it was myself I would move to a cheaper area
of London, this is where I'm from.
But still being able to travel to get work, would you not?
Torminalis - only if you think a hundred thousand families is a relatively small number - these are the people who will be forced into some very unpleasant choices by this.
CHB - so every unemployed family in London should be forced to move? Even if they have kids at school there, good prospects for a job there in the future?
Being a bit more right of centre than I used to be, I thought that the benefit cap was a good thing. And I guess I still do but then I got the thinking.
They set the cap at £26,000 because that it the mean average income for UK households. All good so far.
But then it occurred to me that this average household, with average income, still get child benefit and thus their income is more than £35,000.
And more pertinently, you could have a house hold with an income from two adults of almost £80,000 and they would still be eligible for child benefit.
How is that fair? I still can't believe that we get child benefit; I mean it's completely ridiculous given our household income.
If you're going to have a benefit cap, then it should be a cap on all benefits above that level for everyone, not just those on benefits.
Yunki..TJ.. I'm afraid it's you who are deluded.
I have a sister playing the system in exactly the same way as previously mentioned.
Not only does she and her husband live in a very nice 5 bed house with their seven kids, but they have three holidays a year. Florida, Canaries and newquay. They've been doing the same (visiting the same holiday spots) for years.
She's able bodies, in her mid fortys yet has never worked, her husband works 16 hours a week (thats just enough to qualify for the tax/child credits yet keep the work agency off their back).
They have two cars, both less than 3 years old.
They have every game console going.. all the kids have their own laptops plus spare desktop systems.
This is not a one off.. it's endemic around these parts. Until people like you lift your head out of the guardian and start to face the fact it's happening, you doom the whole welfare system to failure, as it cant carry on like this.
Ta TSY
Grantway - there simply is not enough cheap accomodation.
elzorillo
She must be fiddling bigtime or thats just bullshit. I know what the benefit levels are like.
Why should someone on benefits get their rent paid in the lovely rural village in Oxfordshire that most can't afford to buy in?
I really really don't think that is how it works..
If you're going to have a benefit cap, then it should be a cap on all benefits above that level for everyone, not just those on benefits.
It seems your missing the point, this is the maximum benefits paid to a household. They could still work and receive benefits to push them above the £26k mark. If you don't work then you will only get the £26k per house hold. Well that's in the simplest terms anyway.
TJ. Ultimately yes, I do think people should not be funded by the state to live in areas where an AVERAGE working person could not afford.
I have kids and I appreciate the disruption that adopting this swiftly would cause and so I think it should be phased in with support over 3 years or so (that would mean that GCSE years etc could be avoided if school moves are involved).
These are real choices made by real people every day, kids get moved from schools and from one house to another for many reasons. It is not the role of the state to insulate the unemployed to an extent that folk who work do not enjoy themselves.
TJ But there are cheaper parts than others all over the UK
and yes the selling off of Council housing was the biggest mistake
But Thatcher done that to control the striking working class at that time.
It seems your missing the point,
No I get what you're saying and what the government is saying. But my point is that if you're going to argue that it's fair to limit the payments to the mean household income, then it's not fair to pay it to households with above the mean.
Yunki - sadly, maybe only in a very small number of cases, it does... £300k house being rented out to a non-working single parent family. Very good over-subscribed primary school in the village too.
Edit
CHB - I see you talk of a 3 year transition - thats fine then IMO.
this proposal has no transition attached .
Yunki..TJ.. I'm afraid it's you who are deluded.I have a sister [b]playing the system[/b] in exactly the same way as previously mentioned.
I think that you're wrong.. I cannot see a way where you can have a luxury lifestyle paid for purely by legitimately claiming the benefits that you are entitled to..
the maths does not add up..
maybe I'm missing something here.. 😕
only if you think a hundred thousand families is a relatively small number
I heard it was half that, and in the context of a nation of 70 million people, that is a reasonably small number. Especially when it is predicted that those families will be losing an average of £93 per week each. That would hurt but most would weather it so in reality, I reckon it would be a whole lot less.
No Tandem But something really has to be done.
Me personally i would like to see the Government start doing
building programs that included the jobless and give them apprenticeships
and i would be happy if they was given a little more just has when I had
my apprenticeship when learning my trade.
This does not include the £ 26k
£300k house being rented out to a non-working single parent family.
what's their rent though..?
elzorilloShe must be fiddling bigtime or thats just bullshit. I know what the benefit levels are like.
Why do you insist on calling everyone who knows facts that differ you your view of the world as liars?
They play the system.. maybe they play it well, but they're committing no crime.
You want more examples?..
Another guy I know is 48.. never worked.. faked a bad back his whole life.. Nice new car paid for by mobility.. Nice house in the country.. Recently got a grant from somewhere for £32k to build an extension (downstairs bedroom and walk in shower) as he 'cant' get upstairs easily.. Really a very nice computer room with 50" screen for his nighttime hobby of playing games.. Crazy bit.. as it's a grant, he owns the extension and if he ever leaves the council run property then the council have to BUY the extension from him.
Spends his daytime breeding koi and birds of prey.
I have many more.. as I said it's endemic here. Of course you have the right to call me a liar and pretend it doesnt happen.
[b]yunki - Member[/b]Why should someone on benefits get their rent paid in the lovely rural village in Oxfordshire that most can't afford to buy in?
[b]I really really don't think that is how it works.. [/b]
Well, my parents still live in the council house I grew up in in a very desireable part of rural Derbyshire/Peak District. I would struggle to buy a house there of any decent size.
My parents never worked when I was young - not particularly because they were lazy, but by their own admission, it simply wasn't worth it. They were much better off on the dole.
Now they weren't your stereotypical family of benefit scroungers. Only one kid (me) until my half sister came along when I was 16, very keen on keeping a lovely garden and living a carefree lifestyle - basically a pair of old hippies. We didn't have a rich lifestyle either and I've no idea how much they claimed.
As a kid I was slightly embarrassed by it and now I'm slightly annoyed by it. The system needs to be changed, but simply 'capping' probably isn't a solution - it is a start though.
ok..
I'm out
living in a council property in the countryside is now wrong..?
cos the house may be worth bucks..?
bucks to who..? some nob from the city..?
what's the argument here..?
I think I misunderstood and thought people were getting cross about housing benefit paying high rents..?
I'm getting wound up because like MMB above.. me and my family work pissing hard for a low income (way below the averages being thrown around here) but we get by..
because of our low income we live in a modest housing association property with a low rent which subsidised by a very small amount of benefit..
our place is in a rural area near to our family which may make it worth a few bucks to someone..
what are we doing that's objectionable here..?
why has someone with some high paying job got more right to live in a rural area..?
I think there is a severe problem with people confusing wealth and worth..
😆
3 year transition sounds like an excellent idea. We should all tweet our MP.
elzorillo -
to get that much money they are committing crimes - benefit fraud.
You need to know just how much money benefits are - no life of luxury on benefits without major fraud.
Its a simple fact that a life on benefits does not give people what you claim. I am not calling yo a liar - I am saying that you have missed the major fraud that must be going on to get that much money.
I am not pretending that people on benefits are not rich - its the truth
go and look at how much benefits actually are
Well, it's more than anyone at Singletrack earns...
chipps, in Calderdale you could rent the friggin town hall for the price of a flat in london. Fancy some new neighbours?
It's household benefits!
Some people have waaaaaaaay too much time on their hands!
Yunki: Doh!!
Yunki.. Where are you in the country?
I'll tell you something.. that guy with the bad back that he fakes.. yes fakes..
He's had his benefit withdrawn three times after medical assessment.. Do you know that if you appeal the decision, they simply reinstate it as it's easier and much cheaper than chasing it up? from your ignorant and childish responses you obviously dont.
You obviously need some education into the claims business so rather that calling everyone a liar, why not look a little further into it.
...IT infrastructure changes...
Oh no!
Elzorillo...you say faked a bad back...why havent u shopped him
Lots of mail reader comments on this thread...and some that understand the issues...as someone working in benefits at an L.A...its amusing and scary at the same time...carry on....
Hoodie, what special understanding of working class families do you posess that elevates your awareness?
I come from a modest family and have friends and family at all ends of the income distribution. I do see the social system as a safety net and not a lifestlye choice and i realise that puts me to the right of the average guardian reader. But I see that we live in a country where a single dad on£26000 a year salary would be better off jacking in his job and living off the state. My best friend is in this situation and you know what....he works. why? because he sees work and supporting your family from your own efforts is the right thing to do. we need to encourage that behaviour.
I suppose it's stories like this that upset the middle classes, obviously not the norm but the council might help themselves by wondering if it's really appropriate to do this sort of thing
It's going to be one hell of a drop in income for the Royals. Lucky they've got a little stashed away.
Elzorillo...you say faked a bad back...why havent u shopped him
heheheh If I shopped everyone I know who's playing the benefit game, my town would be a very lonely place.
Thing is.. they have a lot of time on their hands and know every little thing they can get. I've grown up with these people and it's a lifestyle choice (I chose a different route) but that doesn't say I don't still associate with them.
This is my last comment on it anyway as its frustrating speaking truth and being called a liar by people who simply do not know the facts.
I don't see how I've disagreed with u chb...I don't possess any great forsight, but have a working knowledge of the impact of changes lots dont...the localism bill for council tax relief is going to screw many imho
Elzorillo - you need to actually have a look at benefit rates. they really are nothing like you think they are.
These people you see who are affording new cars and multiple foreign holidays simply cannot do so from benefits. the levels simply are too low.
He's had his benefit withdrawn three times after medical assessment.. Do you know that if you appeal the decision, they simply reinstate it as it's easier and much cheaper than chasing it up? from your ignorant and childish responses you obviously dont.
That's utter rubbish, and someone close to me sits on tribunals that hear benefits appeals.
mudshark - Member
I suppose it's stories like this that upset the middle classes, obviously not the norm but the council might help themselves by wondering if it's really appropriate to do this sort of thing
Don't see how any Migrant feels we should house them or claim any benefits has they have a country to return to
Yes, yes, it costs lots to live in London. That's the main reason many people don't/can't.
Anyway, the HoL voted for the amendment to exclude child benefit from the cap.
Agreed..
hoodie, sorry, I probably gave you the tj treatment. Care to start another thread on the localism bill as I am interested in getting my head around the issues.
That's utter rubbish, and someone close to me sits on tribunals that hear benefits appeals.
ok.. so I commented..
I can only comment on what I see with my own eyes. All I have typed is fact. I dont work in or claim any benefits, but I have sat many times listening to the guy mentioned laughingly tell me how he stays on benefits, I've even seem him jumping around his house like an Olympic gymnast looking for his crutches, simply because he's seen someone in a suit outside his house.
Could you live on £26,000 per year
Yes!
I would love the extra cash!
(2+2, rented 3 bed house)
elzorillo
Your family of 7 basic benefits is around £550 a week plus housing benefit. that £550 a week has to pay everything but your housing costs. gas . electric food etc. Now that's a fair sum of money but no way does it stretch to the lifestyle you describe, Housing benefit also has a cap
They would be better off if he worked more than 16 hrs a week as working tax credit is more generous
No one is better off on benefits than working since the introduction of tax credits
CHB - MemberBut I see that we live in a country where a single dad on£26000 a year salary would be better off jacking in his job and living off the state.
He will be better off working - maybe not much but he will be due to the long taper on tax credits.
I have lived off a lot less before I got married and had kids etc. Would require a lifestyle change now, but it's surprising how quickly you'll adapt when you have to.
I've got a mate who earns 85K+ and probably lives off 15.
He's as tight as 2 coats of paint though.
All I have typed is [s]fact[/s] [b]what the crim who fakes the bad back has told me[/b]
I'm sorry.. I will shut up and stop being childish.. your source is way more reliable than my many years of having a disabled family member..
I'm off to bed before this fella gives me an itch.. 8)
TJ in pure financial income terms you are probably correct. But then factor in the hassle of childcare etc for three kids, the lack of time he has with them and the cost of commuting from leeds to bradford each day and I do think his stress levels and quality of life would be better on benefits. To be honest hes the only person I know that i would encourage to fall back on the state. He has 20 plus years of paying taxes, no shame in taking a bit out of the system while the kids are at the key age they are now.
These people you see who are affording new cars and multiple foreign holidays simply cannot do so from benefits. the levels simply are too low.
Motability provides 580'000 cars to people on benefits.
Not all of them are genuinely disabled.
http://benefitfraud.blogspot.com/2011/11/light-sentence-for-calculated-benefit.html
bit late on this reply but...
granted i didnt take into account im renting a room, rather than an entire house (uni) but still.
rent: £65 a week, £3120 a year (living with 4 others)
food: £25 a week, £1200 a year
leaves £680 for bills and other stuff. ok maybe 5 grand was pushing it a bit, but my point is that people dont realise how little you can actually survive on.
god my drug habit cost more than jsa dont know how you can survive on jsa
Motability provides 580'000 cars, [b]scooters or powered wheelchairs[/b] to people on benefits.
Anyone who thinks that DLA is for poor souls in Wheelchairs is sadly mistaken.
Yes, some folk are, but the vast majority are "mental health issues" claimants. That includes, drink and drugs cases.
DLA has the piss ripped right out of it.
😯
Any source for that incredible assertion?
people simply are not having enough children these days hence why we need so many immigrants, they could never openly pay people to breed due to politicly views in this country.Bit that the real reason you get so much money for having kids, its good for the countryWhy should having more and more kids entitle you to more and more money?
Lifer, let me give a couple of examples of Benefits madness.
Your not fit for work so claim ESA. Your other half does not work but is physically prefectly fit. You can claim for them. They do not have to sign on.
You are disabled, cannot care for yourself and receive High Rate DLA Care. Because of this, your partner can claim Carers Allowance for looking after you. But your partner too is disabled, cannot care for themselves and receives High Rate DLA Care. So you can claim Carers Allowance for looking after them. In other words, two people who cant look after themselves, are perfectly entitled to claim for looking after each other.
And that's the tip of the iceberg.
what most people want to hear,unless you have a big family and live in a big house and dont want to work.
Or live in an area with very high property prices and you've just lost your job thanks to this government's policies.
What other people earn is utterly irrelevant - it's not suppose to be a form of punishment. So I don't know why people keep swallowing this bollox about average income.
Perhaps next they'll put a limit on the maximum amount the NHS can spend on one person, after all someone receiving a bypass op must cost the NHS far more than the average, and apparently "need" is no longer an issue.
This policy, which is backed by the Labour Party, represents the triumph of tabloid-fueled moronic thinking. And very neatly fits into the strategy of blaming the victims for the government's failures.
Raising unemployment ? falling living standards ? chronic housing shortages ? high taxes/VAT to pay for the bankers cockups ? young people without a future ? the super-rich not paying their taxes ? Never mind about all that ........ just blame those targeted by the tabloids.
Oh how the Bullingdon Boys must be laughing.
Must be hard to keep a straight face sometimes.
[img] 
[/img]
yunki - Memberliving in a council property in the countryside is now wrong..?
cos the house may be worth bucks..?bucks to who..? some nob from the city..?
what's the argument here..?I think I misunderstood and thought people were getting cross about housing benefit paying high rents..?
our place is in a rural area near to our family which may make it worth a few bucks to someone..
what are we doing that's objectionable here..?
why has someone with some high paying job got more right to live in a rural area..?
I think there is a severe problem with people confusing wealth and worth..
The objection is that someone can live in a house in a nice area and not contribute anything financially to the state whilst someone else who does contribute finanically to the state can't and has to live somewhere less nice. What's not fair is that the person contributing is effectively paying the person who's not contrubuting to live in the area that they themselves can't afford. How can anyone argue that's fair?
Perhaps I'm feeling right wing today because i'm about to have to pay stamp duty on a house (aka a tax on earnings i've already paid tax on), but I must say 26k for doing nothing is ridiculous.
Spends his daytime breeding koi and birds of prey.
Serial killer. Definitely.
stucol - Member
Lifer, let me give a couple of examples of Benefits madness.Your not fit for work so claim ESA. Your other half does not work but is physically prefectly fit. You can claim for them. They do not have to sign on.
What can you claim for them?
You are disabled, cannot care for yourself and receive High Rate DLA Care. Because of this, your partner can claim Carers Allowance for looking after you. But your partner too is disabled, cannot care for themselves and receives High Rate DLA Care. So you can claim Carers Allowance for looking after them. In other words, two people who cant look after themselves, are perfectly entitled to claim for looking after each other.
Like it says on the DirectGov website you mean?
"Carer's Allowance can be claimed by more than one person in a household, such as a couple caring for each other."
[url= http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Caringforsomeone/DG_10012525 ]DirectGov[/url]
But of course Carer's Allowance is affected by other benefits (such as DLA) so neither would get the full rate but would also not be getting sufficient care so I would suggest that it never happens. At least not often enough to be statistically significant.
[b]I always thought of the benefit system as a safety net, how wrong was I![/b]
About 8 years ago we were a family with husband working (self employed Driving Instructor since early 90's), and me looking after the 2 young children. We were involved in a car crash and my husband spent 3 months in a wheelchair.
I got the best benefit advice from a friend who worked at the CAB, but we still ended up getting less than a similar family of whom no one had ever worked, how can this be right?
We got less than our monthly mortgage at the time; we got incapacity (about £70 p/w) and income support. We had no saving apart from the money set aside for next tax bill (less than the bill). Being self employed you pay tax every 6 months instead of every time you get paid. This money got counted as personal savings, eventhough owed to the Inland Revenue and would be counted as such untill the bill was due (as fas as I am aware you pay in arrears?!). Money was deducted from Income Support (-£12 p/w).
We live in a modest 3 bed semi bought by husband in the mid eighties, so low mortgage. We did NOT qualify to have our interest paid as we had re-mortgaged (lots of good deals about back then) within the last few year and this counted as a new mortgage?!?!?
We would not have survived had it not been for my dad who put £3000 in our bank, and for all the friend and family who brought food/bought shopping.
We totally lost faith in the benefit system after that.
My husband had never even seen a sick note before that time, and had always worked. We also had to pay back any benefits we did receive out of our very modest pay out from the Motor Insurance Bureau (5 years later).
It definitly needs to change, but maybe concentrate on helping the people who do deserve it and really need their safety net...
unless you have a big family and live in a big house and dont want to work.
[img] http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSdxlBLRc8cHngT30boDaGx5QaYaHFivrrE_eZMowWJILUDnrDvYg [/img]
"Oh, I say, that's rotten!"
This policy, which is backed by the Labour Party, represents the triumph of tabloid-fueled moronic thinking. And very neatly fits into the strategy of blaming the victims for the government's failures.
Ernie you were doing well with your argument up to this point and I think that this illustrates the problem with the debate. It is polarised around left versus right.
It shouldn't be.
What people should or should not get in benefit is as irrelevant to the average income as it is to how they got there in the first place.
It's not the government's 'fault' it might not even be anyone's fault. It's just how it is.
The right would do much better to stop polarising the argument around the issue of fairness compared to average household income and the left would do much better to stop polarising it around 'it's the government's fault'.