Cap on benefits?

Would it be a good idea to put a cap on benefits or not? Looks like the government have failed to get it through the house of lords, but tbh, it makes sense to put some sort of cap on it doesn't it?

The proposed figure was a max of £500 per week. Personally I think that sounds too high.

feel free to add your views.......

£26k a year (which would equate to a salary of something circa £34k)

a pay rise for not working...... where do I sign up!

Can't blame folk for not working once they get into the benefit "trap" to be fair.

Totally remove child benefit and the country saves 11 billion quid a year.

How many kids do they other family have there

I think that the hidden story here, is that the State are considerably subsidising low-paying Employers - which would be considered inflationary by many right-wing Economists.... Those rent figures are plain wrong, imho: £1k pm for a 1 bedroom property

Link

That £680pw is £35k pa, GROSS

It's been thrown out by those old dodderers in the Lords.

Radio 5 made interesting listening on Stephen Nolan's show on Sunday night. The Bishop came in for a right hammering from normal folk struggling to make ends meet.

26K sounds obscene but it wouldn't actually save that much overall.

I think you should have child benefit for one child but anymore and it's really down to the couple. Trouble is you have some women with 7 kids by 7 different fathers The kids can't starve so what do you do ? But then there will be a genuine case where someone has been made redundant.

I do think it's madness, however, that large families can occupy 1 million pound properties in affluent parts of London. That really is unaffordable and unsustainable.

I'd like to know how you get that much benefit. For those that don't know, I was unemployed for around 7½ months before starting my latest job. I got job-seekers allowance (£67.30) for the first 13 weeks and then nothing after that. I know the benefit system is there so that we don't let people starve on the streets, and I think it's probably one of the 2 greatest reforms that this country has ever done (NHS is the other), but how the **** do people manage to claim such money?

I tried (legitimately) to claim for various things, but was unsuccessful. I've worked & paid my taxes & NI for all but 2 years of my working life, and was expected to survive on my massive £67.30 a week to feed/clothe the 3 of us. I just don't know how people can get this much money?

The link breaks down the payments, you should have got a bit for 3 kids....

The big numbers are made up by the London Rents - see the link in my post for the Housing Benefit in Barnet, which the BBC use.

this is my big gripe really, I fully agree with help for folk who need it, but time and time again I hear stories like yours, guys that work for 20years, get paid off and get little or no help while that ones that are taught they never have to work get everything going.

I agree with you Shaggy, i dont know how they do it either [claiming no money, no abode, lots of children, i dont know], but i wouldnt be surprised if a lot of it is exaggerated by the right wing press and right wing politicians to keep benefits low.

One of reasons its so high is to do with housing cost, area I live in would be between £800/1000 per month and there are very few council homes, other reason is how you fill the forms in, if an ordinary person fills in for himself chances of getting anything very much reduced, but often forms are filled in for applicants with answers needed to get max available, its wrong. No idea how to get round problem though and problem is would think not helped by cost of living varying, in different areas of country. Area live is very expensive for just about everything, but we really have to stay in area because of the post code lottery with NHS, things often are not quite as straightforward as they seem. It baffles me when I hear of some of amounts being received (not always based on media reports either) something has to be done, its how the difficult bit.

A lot of landlords charge as much rent as they possibly can knowing that the state will pick up the tab. If the Housing Benefit is capped watch the rents come tumbling down to adjust to that cap.

A lady interviewed on the BBC News tonight is receiving over £1000 a month in Housing Benefit, but she says that if this is capped she would have to move somewhere "where she don't know nobody". Tough titty I say.

It is capped - see my Link above - but Barnet seems to be very very high....

People who want a job often have to move to other parts of the country in order to find a job, or to keep a job. So what's wrong with moving those on benefits, whose demands exceed the cap, to another part of the country where rents are far lower?

Rents are high because an area is 'desirable' which to many means 'aspirational'.

In other words, work hard and one day you might live there..... or alternatively just doss and scrounge off the state.

If you are unemployed you should not expect to get the pick of housing and should be grateful of ANY roof over your head provided for you.

This makes me uncomfortable on a number of levels.
Pensioners who have worked for 40 odd years end up with £5000 pension benefit - unemployed one parent family with 2 kids gets £26000/year.
I don't want anyone put out on the streets but I don't think making life too easy is helping people here.
I want to see some serious effort being made to justify that sort of benefit and just like student loans they should have to pay some of it back if they ever decide to join the hard working classes in this country.
I feel angry and yet worry about the kids and the more deserving cases.
Stopping child benefit for those that don't need it is a start and also limiting it so people don't sh*g their way to the bank.

Those levels may just get a roof over their head in Barnet?

The real problem is the Housing Market, has too many landlords who push up the prices so outpricing the locals - similar to the experiences in parts of Wales, the SW etc where Londoners have "2nd homes". I quote home, as it isn't really a home but a twice a year place to stay somewhere nice etc.... Housing is not a price driven market, as (most) people only have the one, so reducing the price will not bring a drastic increase in demand - unlike cream cakes, ice cream etc.

Places with far lower rents will have far fewer jobs available and therefore undermine the principal objective of the
Government's welfare policy which is to get people into work and off benefits?

So, if Barnet is expensive then it shouldn't be available to those who can't afford it.

To an extent the housing market IS like ice cream. When it is dear people will invest in a second house (not home) to rent it out and therefore pay off their mortgage and others cannot afford any. This theory only works as a model because some people will pay higher (or as high) monthly rents as they would for a mortgage payment. There are lots of reasons for this and one is that the local authority are paying it for them.

A lot of these 'council tenants' sub let their homes and use the inflated rent income to finance their mortgage payments on a new house.

It all ultimately boils down to greed. Landlords buy houses because they think it will earn them money (whether or not there is a benefit cap). If I had the means to buy another house & rent it out, I probably would. Not because I would think that it'll help some-one rent who can't get a mortgage, but because I will get a good return on my investment and it's a guaranteed income. If the bank base rate was 20%, and building societies were paying 15% interest, then people would stick their money in the building society, and not bother buying houses. If councils build cheap affordable housing, then landlords buy them because they're cheap and they know they can make easy money.

However, to those of us that have taken the 'traditional' route to getting a house, you go and see Mr Bank Manager & he tells you that you can get a mortgage for 3 times your annual salary (or whatever it is nowadays). Armed with this information, you look at houses that you can afford to buy. If you know that you can spend £100k on a house, then you don't look at houses that cost £300k (unless you are phenomenally brilliant at haggling). Your level of housing is dependant on what you earn. If you can't afford to live in a 'leafy suburb' then you don't live there.

And this is what gets me. I would like to live in a bigger, nicer house, but until I win the lottery or get a better paid job, then it just isn't going to happen. I accept it and make do with what I have. People that are demanding a fortune to live in an area because their kids go to school there really get on my ****. I accept that there are some individuals out there that through no fault of their own are in a sh***y situation, but the vast, vast majority of people just want life to be served up to them without them having to put in the effort, and it's just greed. While we as a country are prepared to wipe some peoples ar**, then everyone else expects that they should be treated like some sort of minor celebrity and should be given everything they ask for.

Like I said, it's all about greed. Everyone is just out for whatever they can get out of the system, whether it's as a landlord, or some-one trying to get more benefits, or the majority of us that buy stuff from the supermarket because it's on special offer and it will keep in the cupboard until we need it.

Rant over. Apologies to anyone I have upset with my wandering drivel, but it's just been one of those days, and I needed to be able to type something by hitting the keys really hard.

So many good comments on here. I think you deserved much more than a mere £67 a week Shaggy. That's scandalous

Some people know how to play the system, that's for sure. These are usually the types where the families have had three generations or so where no on has worked. They see children as a golden ticket not to work. That must change, somehow. Vouchers to pay for food and clothes rather than hard cash handed over (and usually wasted) is one thought.

Everyone lives to their means. If you can afford to live in a nicer area, you do. If you can't, you don't. Or you may not be able to afford a house in a decent area but a flat. All financial decisions we must make.

But you've got families living in St Johns Wood by the sound of it, expecting us to bankroll their rent where only the affluent can afford to live. They have to downsize I'm afraid. Tough titty, as said above. This also needs to be addressed.

The trouble is, normal hardworking families only have on average two children due to cost.
The benefit families tend to have far more as the state pays for them.
The benefit children then follow the same pattern and within a few generations, have multiplied far more than the working family, generating more handouts.
In time the country will be on it's arse, meaning hardworking people have to work longer for less pension.

Reverse Darwinism in a nutshell:

Any data to support any of that?

There are more single parent families (obviously) but large families?

Try Catholics

We need a benefit cap and a lot could be saved on housing benefit, child benefit and child tax credits. We need a ceiling on housing benefit to stop greedy landlords and tenants abusing the system. There should also be a time limit on housing benefit so people do not claim it for years.
Child benefit and child tax credits should be scrapped as no one needs it. It is a "nice to have" rather than a necessity. Use the money saved to help those on jobseekers allowance. We can then provide larger sums to those looking for work and who have children so people like shaggy are not left to feed 2 adults and 3 kids on 67 quid a week.

Groomyd sometimes you don't need "data" you can just be brought up on a council estate and witness it for yourself! The best information comes from those who experience the problem and there are many hard working people who will bear witness to much of the above.

Can't believe you want to bring religion into a political discussion - are you the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds?

Without picking on Pa, this is the problem. The impression is that a lot - meaning most, in my little mind - are doing this and most on the dole are living a life of luxury. Surely it is some, and quite possibly a small minority, of the people relying on Benefits for a roof over there head that are taking the piss.

The data I have is my own eyes, I have seen first hand, young girls getting pregnant at 16.
This is a "career choice"as the state is duty bound to provide housing and then benefits to support the child.
Fast forward another 15 years and the cycle is repeated.
I do not know the answer but I am really peed off when I look at my wage slip and see what I am stopped every month whilst being told that my retirement date will be pushed back.