Housing Benefit Cap
- Thread starter joe-90
- Start date
Sponsored Links
A friend up the up the road, female, decent living conditions, 1 daughter,she donates £30 a week.
Lives in a council house, clean garden etc.
She works 40 hrs a week, gave her car up,can't afford it,pays full rent, rates, etc, she is now forced to leave her house, as she can't afford to run it with gas, electric.
She and her daughter are now moving back in with her elderly mother, who also bought their food. She can go on the dole, and keep her house, then the government pays everything.
What a sad situation, for a person working, but can't afford what people on the dole can
Lives in a council house, clean garden etc.
She works 40 hrs a week, gave her car up,can't afford it,pays full rent, rates, etc, she is now forced to leave her house, as she can't afford to run it with gas, electric.
She and her daughter are now moving back in with her elderly mother, who also bought their food. She can go on the dole, and keep her house, then the government pays everything.
What a sad situation, for a person working, but can't afford what people on the dole can
As well as maintaining it and in real terms it probably works out cheaper too than social housing.
Sponsored Links
err no they don't unless the rules have changed
They did pay interest...that is due to change
How do they arrive at the median then, if they don't include all earners?
No, but as someone who has lived in central London and now lives in leafy Bedfordshire, I don't want 10's or 100's of thousands of unemployed people suddenly descending on us here.
We can't magic up jobs out here any more than they can in London. It would probably be harder as it would involve massive infrastructure projects to cope with the increased population. The best we could do is offering seasonal jobs picking crops, but as it's mostly mechanised nowadays that would be a nugatory exercise.
Anyone living further from London will find this hilarious, but it was the number one news story on local radio for several days!!!
The ironic thing was, Luton was used as an example of a place where lots of London unemployed could be sent. That would be the Luton that has lost several large employers in the last decade (Vauxhall, for one), and already has massive unemployment in some areas as a result.
We need more social housing. Tower blocks might have been a failed post-war experiment, but at least the local authority can control the price. Would probably make private renting cheaper in the area too, thus driving down house prices too.
M
Mickymoody
There was a rule change around 1995, sometimes they pay the basic mortgage, and sometimes the interest on the mortgage, depending what type of mortgage, and depending on the type of NI contribution paid upto that date, but only after a year of non payment, so are in deficit, even before they start, and there is another goal mover - if you get a temp job, for 3 months, then you lose mortgage payments again for 12 months again, so you gotta be sure what job you are going into is a career choice, rather than a temporary job. But in the meantime, you are working at least 30 hours a week, which makes it harder to look for work.
I ought to work for them, as I know the rules better than them!
Another oddity is this; If your electrics fail, or your cooker blows up, then you are allowed to claim for either an emergency loan, or a crisis loan, to replace the necessity...But, as people are classified as being on 'New Deal', rather than 'Job Seeker', they can't claim this, the computer says no. Logic says yes. But computer says no. That's how the Government says x number of people unemployed, they don't count people on new deal. These are the people that are already working for their dole, in charity shops, groundwork etc, for years, but the Government has only just revealed the idea???
How corrupt can a government get?
I ought to work for them, as I know the rules better than them!
Another oddity is this; If your electrics fail, or your cooker blows up, then you are allowed to claim for either an emergency loan, or a crisis loan, to replace the necessity...But, as people are classified as being on 'New Deal', rather than 'Job Seeker', they can't claim this, the computer says no. Logic says yes. But computer says no. That's how the Government says x number of people unemployed, they don't count people on new deal. These are the people that are already working for their dole, in charity shops, groundwork etc, for years, but the Government has only just revealed the idea???
How corrupt can a government get?
I'll admit to not knowing the exact details, but it's not a case of not including all the big earners , it's a way of coming up with a figure that has some relevance to the general populace and not (too) distorted.
To give an example , imagine a factory where there are 99 workers earning £10,000 per year and one boss earning £100,000 a year.
therefore total bill for wages is £990,000 + £100,000 which equals £1,090,000 per year Divide that by 100 (total number of people in the factory) and the mathamatical average is £10,900 per year or to put it in another way 99% is below average and 1% above. Ignoring the fact this would have inflationary pressures as the 99% demand higher wages to even reach the "average" wage it becomes clear that the common sense average for want of a better word is in reality £10,000 per year i.e. the median average.
Hope this is clearer now.
It would be interesting to know the mathamatical average of the country though, but as we all know the really high earners have some very inventive ways of being paid
To give an example , imagine a factory where there are 99 workers earning £10,000 per year and one boss earning £100,000 a year.
therefore total bill for wages is £990,000 + £100,000 which equals £1,090,000 per year Divide that by 100 (total number of people in the factory) and the mathamatical average is £10,900 per year or to put it in another way 99% is below average and 1% above. Ignoring the fact this would have inflationary pressures as the 99% demand higher wages to even reach the "average" wage it becomes clear that the common sense average for want of a better word is in reality £10,000 per year i.e. the median average.
Hope this is clearer now.
It would be interesting to know the mathamatical average of the country though, but as we all know the really high earners have some very inventive ways of being paid
Well, I understand now hoe you arrive at the Median, but that siad, it means that at least 50% of the working population ( Say 15 Million ?? ) are earning below the National Average Wage, so why should the Benefits Cap ( Not the Housing benefits Cap) be set at £500 per week, which is the National Average, when half the population don't even earn that much and they have to pay tax on their earnings?
Furthermore, how on earth is this going to encourage people off benefits and into work ?
Furthermore, how on earth is this going to encourage people off benefits and into work ?
Coljack
A good answer that..
I have complained to the government that the work system is for the unemployed is monstrously cruel and needs changing. Have seen how agencies play dumb about the way they treat workers. Offering them a job for silly periods of time that effect the JSA. Hopefully, something may be going on to fix the problem but it remains to be seen.
A good answer that..
I have complained to the government that the work system is for the unemployed is monstrously cruel and needs changing. Have seen how agencies play dumb about the way they treat workers. Offering them a job for silly periods of time that effect the JSA. Hopefully, something may be going on to fix the problem but it remains to be seen.
Good question and frankly I don't know , especially as a 40 hour week on minimum wage of £5.93 gives a total of £237.20. Surely a figure below this should be the cap for benifits? As I posted somewhere before I'm in favour of a definative cap coming in after a period of 3 or 6 months , the majority of people made redundant who want to work will have made quite some sffort in those months , it's those that are content to just stay on benifits that are the actual problem.
I would fully agree with that, but I still feel that the best thing would be to tax benefits, why should benefits claimants get them tax free when they are way in excess of the personal taxation limits set for ordinary working people?
Sponsored Links
