Benefits cap ruling today

Listening to this news today I'm a little shocked at the amount of this cap.

The cap is £25,000 outside of London and the courts have said this cap causes harm but the UK national average salary is £27,600.

There may be other circumstances that I am unaware of but it seems odd how £25,000 is not enough but a massive proportion of the UK population live with approx the same amount or less.

Also, those who are employed earning £27,600 will be paying income tax and national insurance. Most benefits are not subject to tax, such as council tax benefit and housing benefit, so the disparity is even more evident.

the cap should be, no one can receive more than their last years earning after tax.

Listening to this news today I'm a little shocked at the amount of this cap.

 

The cap is £25,000 outside of London and the courts have said this cap causes harm but the UK national average salary is £27,600.

 

There may be other circumstances that I am unaware of but it seems odd how £25,000 is not enough but a massive proportion of the UK population live with approx the same amount or less.

 

Also, those who are employed earning £27,600 will be paying income tax and national insurance. Most benefits are not subject to tax, such as council tax benefit and housing benefit, so the disparity is even more evident.

And yet, how much is the minimum wage! I would cap the amount at 20 hours of minimum wage work and let people claim the same in work benefits as employed people for that amount of work.

the cap should be, no one can receive more than their last years earning after tax.

That makes little sense, given that people who are still earning can receive benefits (indeed the largest portion of benefits claimants are in work).

---------- Post added 22-06-2017 at 13:38 ----------

And yet, how much is the minimum wage! I would cap the amount at 20 hours of minimum wage work and let people claim the same in work benefits as employed people for that amount of work.

Not a bad idea, but why the arbitrary 20hrs?

I think that anyone who's sole income is benefits should be regularly audited, having to provide receipts and invoices for their purchases.

Anything deemed an unnecessary expense, the value of is deducted from the next payment.

Sick and tired of seeing TV shows where they're moaning the can't pay for basics whilst there's a 50 inch TV on the wall, hooked up to Sky/virgin and games consoles. Whilst they're supping/smoking with one hand, iPhone or similar in the other.

Clearly if you're paying for all that then you're getting too much

Personally I think the cap should be 10k per adult

The cap is actually £23,000 in London and £20,000 outside.

That makes little sense, given that people who are still earning can receive benefits (indeed the largest portion of benefits claimants are in work).

 

---------- Post added 22-06-2017 at 13:38 ----------

 

 

Not a bad idea, but why the arbitrary 20hrs?

It was arbitrary. It should be less than full time, but still give an incentive to get a job. I'm flexible on the 20hrs - I'll let my minions work out the details!

The cap is actually £23,000 in London and £20,000 outside.

"The benefit cap incentivises work, even if it's part-time, as anyone eligible for working tax credits or the equivalent under Universal Credit, is exempt. Even with the cap, lone parents can still receive benefits up to the equivalent salary of £25,000, or £29,000 in London and we have made Discretionary Housing Payments available to people who need extra help."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40367686

---------- Post added 22-06-2017 at 14:03 ----------

I think that anyone who's sole income is benefits should be regularly audited, having to provide receipts and invoices for their purchases.

 

Anything deemed an unnecessary expense, the value of is deducted from the next payment.

A form of charge card would be something I support. Stoping people from using their benefits to spend in places like Ladbrooks etc.

"The need for alternative benefits to make up shortfalls is hardly conducive to the desire to incentivise work and so not provide benefits. ...

The cap is capable of real damage to such as the claimants. They are not workshy but find it, because of the care difficulties, impossible to comply with the work requirement. Most lone parents with children under two are not the sort of households the cap was intended to cover... Real misery is being caused to no good purpose.”

The high court disagrees with you.

Lawyers for the four families said they had been unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds they are single parents and therefore unable to work as many hours as other people.

"The benefit cap incentivises work, even if it's part-time, as anyone eligible for working tax credits or the equivalent under Universal Credit, is exempt. Even with the cap, lone parents can still receive benefits up to the equivalent salary of £25,000, or £29,000 in London and we have made Discretionary Housing Payments available to people who need extra help."

That may be so but the actual cap is still what I stated.

A form of charge card would be something I support. Stoping people from using their benefits to spend in places like Ladbrooks etc.

Is there any evidence that this happens, and what would stop them buying goods and then exchanging them for cash anyway?

Is there any evidence that this happens, and what would stop them buying goods and then exchanging them for cash anyway?

Hmmm... but surely, that's a good thing?

It would encourage entrepreneurial thinking by effectively making more people self-employed and therefore less likely to be dependant on any future benefits...