Dwp Assesment On Who Will Be Hit By Benefit Cut

[ralphmalph]

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2011/03/a-startling-welfare-statistic/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ft/westminster+(Westminster+Blog)

The good news is the confirmation that max benefits capped at 26K as opposed to about 100K now.

Also 1/3rd hit are single parents with 5 or more kids. It would be interesting to know the actual total number it must be large.

Also going to be an awful lot of landlords that are going to see the HB gravy train come to an end which is good as well.

[RJJ]

Having just had my rent increased I really hope the HB changes have an impact, makes me bloody angry reading about the money being spent - 1 Billion every 17 days according to the thread earlier in the week.

[exiges]

To be honest, I thought the benefit changes were gong to save more than £225 million.

At least its comfort for working tax payers who could only dream of earning £26k, let alone earning it for doing nothing.

Edited March 3, 2011 by exiges

[voidal]

Having just had my rent increased I really hope the HB changes have an impact, makes me bloody angry reading about the money being spent - 1 Billion every 17 days according to the thread earlier in the week.

It does annoy me. After 20 years working with a disability, why wife finally gets a grade and a bit of support from the state.

what others do ... well....

[RJJ]

It does annoy me. After 20 years working with a disability, why wife finally gets a grade and a bit of support from the state.

what others do ... well....

Yep, I love reading these forums but sometimes I learn a little too much!

[voidal]

Yep, I love reading these forums but sometimes I learn a little too much!

hey, only a parking permit and a little bit of money. Shes paid 20X in tax what the state has finally given back

[RJJ]

hey, only a parking permit and a little bit of money. Shes paid 20X in tax what the state has finally given back

Sorry my comment wasn't aimed at your wife, I was referring to the HB figures

[okaycuckoo]

From the linked report:

What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary?

The Benefit Cap should be seen in the context of the budget deficit and the reductions in public expenditure

that the Government is making to tackle it. Spending on welfare increased by 45 per cent in real terms in

the decade to 2009-2010. Last year the Government spent £192 billion on welfare payments, compared to

£35 billion on defence, £50 billion on education, and £98 billion on health. The state can no longer afford to

pay people disproportionate amounts in benefit each week in welfare payments – sometimes in excess of

the average weekly wage earned by working families. So, from 2013 the Government will introduce a cap

on the total amount of benefit that working-age people can receive so that workless households will no

longer receive more in benefit than working households receive in average wages.

I'm pretty sure the problem has been correctly identified.

It applies especially to single mums who receive housing benefit/SMI, child benefit, and child tax credits - stonking sums are being paid out. If personal incomes of benefit recipients were made public, people on the average wage would puke their guts out. Then they would demand the heads of the bankers - not likely, but I live in hope.

I have no idea if the cap covers tax credits, nor why it is being held off until 2013. Isn't that the year the government intends to pass legislation on banking reform?

[ralphmalph]

From the linked report:

What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary?

The Benefit Cap should be seen in the context of the budget deficit and the reductions in public expenditure

that the Government is making to tackle it. Spending on welfare increased by 45 per cent in real terms in

the decade to 2009-2010. Last year the Government spent £192 billion on welfare payments, compared to

£35 billion on defence, £50 billion on education, and £98 billion on health. The state can no longer afford to

pay people disproportionate amounts in benefit each week in welfare payments – sometimes in excess of

the average weekly wage earned by working families. So, from 2013 the Government will introduce a cap

on the total amount of benefit that working-age people can receive so that workless households will no

longer receive more in benefit than working households receive in average wages.

I'm pretty sure the problem has been correctly identified.

It applies especially to single mums who receive housing benefit/SMI, child benefit, and child tax credits - stonking sums are being paid out. If personal incomes of benefit recipients were made public, people on the average wage would puke their guts out. Then they would demand the heads of the bankers - not likely, but I live in hope.

I have no idea if the cap covers tax credits, nor why it is being held off until 2013. Isn't that the year the government intends to pass legislation on banking reform?

It is being held off until 2013 to get the computer systems right. Thank god the coalition have learnt that you can not annouce a policy for implementation until the IT systems work.

[erranta]

From the linked report:

What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary?

The Benefit Cap should be seen in the context of the budget deficit and the reductions in public expenditure

that the Government is making to tackle it. Spending on welfare increased by 45 per cent in real terms in

the decade to 2009-2010. Last year the Government spent £192 billion on welfare payments, compared to

£35 billion on defence, £50 billion on education, and £98 billion on health. The state can no longer afford to

pay people disproportionate amounts in benefit each week in welfare payments – sometimes in excess of

the average weekly wage earned by working families. So, from 2013 the Government will introduce a cap

on the total amount of benefit that working-age people can receive so that workless households will no

longer receive more in benefit than working households receive in average wages.

I'm pretty sure the problem has been correctly identified.

It applies especially to single mums who receive housing benefit/SMI, child benefit, and child tax credits - stonking sums are being paid out. If personal incomes of benefit recipients were made public, people on the average wage would puke their guts out. Then they would demand the heads of the bankers - not likely, but I live in hope.

I have no idea if the cap covers tax credits, nor why it is being held off until 2013. Isn't that the year the government intends to pass legislation on banking reform?

Why can't they say that it is mostly the fault of a few misbehaving oiks in the City that caused this mess which has created economic collapse and thrown millions of extra people out of work, having to claim benefits over the last few years.

They just can't spit it out or say it in print!

Instead they make it out that anyone unlucky enough to have to claim any benefits is at fault.

Some families on £100,000 a year - just sheer lunacy of Govt rules.

[lulu]

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2011/03/a-startling-welfare-statistic/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ft/westminster+(Westminster+Blog)

The good news is the confirmation that max benefits capped at 26K as opposed to about 100K now.

Also 1/3rd hit are single parents with 5 or more kids. It would be interesting to know the actual total number it must be large.

Also going to be an awful lot of landlords that are going to see the HB gravy train come to an end which is good as well.

This is the crucial element, I am happy to pay tax to help those who may of hit hard times or have (real) medical conditions that reduce their ability to work. What I strongly object to is paying seeming unlimited amounts of money for Jeremy Kyle candidates to be breeding machines for the next generation of Labour voters. I know plenty of couples who are both working and are currently struggling to keep roofs over their heads let alone being able to afford to have children - these are the people who should be having children - hard workers in averageish jobs whose children may go on to be like their parents. Not benefit suckers who despite having bad backs and depression seem more than capable of shagging like rabbits and producing feral offspring who will also need state support.

I know this sounds harsh but the wrong people are being given benefits by breeding, the workers are not getting the same support.

[okaycuckoo]

Why can't they say that it is mostly the fault of a few misbehaving oiks in the City that caused this mess which has created economic collapse and thrown millions of extra people out of work, having to claim benefits over the last few years.

They just can't spit it out or say it in print!

Instead they make it out that anyone unlucky enough to have to claim any benefits is at fault.

Some families on £100,000 a year - just sheer lunacy of Govt rules.

Worth focusing on the first paragraph of that report:

What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary?

We're through the looking glass - the problem is state government, with its support for state-licensed banks.

Edited March 3, 2011 by okaycuckoo

[northwestsmith2]

"A third of those hit by rule change are lone parents with five children or more."

That looks impressive until I find that it is 0.06% i.e. much less than one in a thousand of the number of households in the country.

There was a sign up in the Daliy Mail, which said "don't forget stupiditiy"

Not really; I'm making that up.

Edited March 3, 2011 by northwestsmith2

[okaycuckoo]

There was a sign up in the Daliy Mail, which said "don't forget stupiditiy"

Not really; I'm making that up.

Where did you get the 0.06% quote from?

Maybe I misunderstood, but fewer than 1/1000 households in the UK are single parent on benefits? I don't fink so.

[alexw]

From the linked report:

What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary?

The Benefit Cap should be seen in the context of the budget deficit and the reductions in public expenditure

that the Government is making to tackle it. Spending on welfare increased by 45 per cent in real terms in

the decade to 2009-2010. Last year the Government spent £192 billion on welfare payments, compared to

£35 billion on defence, £50 billion on education, and £98 billion on health. The state can no longer afford to

pay people disproportionate amounts in benefit each week in welfare payments – sometimes in excess of

the average weekly wage earned by working families. So, from 2013 the Government will introduce a cap

on the total amount of benefit that working-age people can receive so that workless households will no

longer receive more in benefit than working households receive in average wages.

I'm pretty sure the problem has been correctly identified.

It applies especially to single mums who receive housing benefit/SMI, child benefit, and child tax credits - stonking sums are being paid out. If personal incomes of benefit recipients were made public, people on the average wage would puke their guts out. Then they would demand the heads of the bankers - not likely, but I live in hope.

I have no idea if the cap covers tax credits, nor why it is being held off until 2013. Isn't that the year the government intends to pass legislation on banking reform?

Umm the real issue is pensions. The 45% real term increase is almost all due to that bar a couple percent. Even worse its still growing and crowding out other potential spending needs.

But with the voting power and habits that pensioners and the soon to be retired have, there is no way the gov would significantly target them.

[alexw]

Where did you get the 0.06% quote from?

Maybe I misunderstood, but fewer than 1/1000 households in the UK are single parent on benefits? I don't fink so.

He means 0.06% will be hit by the 26K cap. That is 0.06% of all benefits claimants have five or more children and currently get over 26K in payments.

Since that 0.06% is 1/3 of all those getting over 26K, you can infer that 0.18% of all benefits claimants get over 26K.

Edited March 3, 2011 by alexw

[ralphmalph]

This is the crucial element, I am happy to pay tax to help those who may of hit hard times or have (real) medical conditions that reduce their ability to work. What I strongly object to is paying seeming unlimited amounts of money for Jeremy Kyle candidates to be breeding machines for the next generation of Labour voters. I know plenty of couples who are both working and are currently struggling to keep roofs over their heads let alone being able to afford to have children - these are the people who should be having children - hard workers in averageish jobs whose children may go on to be like their parents. Not benefit suckers who despite having bad backs and depression seem more than capable of shagging like rabbits and producing feral offspring who will also need state support.

I know this sounds harsh but the wrong people are being given benefits by breeding, the workers are not getting the same support.

You are not being harsh. There was an article on Labourlist by Lisa Nandy MP which was about the issues raised on the doorstep by people she was meeting when out knocking on doors in the north west. The number one issue raised was why are people on benefits better off than us that are working.

It is the number one issue in the country today.

[HPC001]

They conveniently leave out that the vast bulk of the welfare spend is on social care\pensioners, not doleys or single mums.

In any case, I'd prefer my taxes to go to supporting actual human beings, not these viper banksters and the corporate-fascist bloodsuckers that deliver "public" services. As usual, nobody will pay attention to the usury behind the curtain, or the notable issues of land speculation, occupational licensing, the tax burden falling disproportionately on workers rather than landlords\corporations, and the lopsided implementation of pensions...

[SarahBell]

Whoever gets less - I don't really care...

Alll that I need to know is that people will never get more on benefits than they could reasonable expect to earn

EQUALITY needs to come to the UK.

Private owners or renters don't get extra big houses when they pop out more kids so why should anyone on benefits?

[exiges]

It is the number one issue in the country today.

After the one that can never be discussed.