[Closed] Benefit cuts

Sociopathtrackworld?

I'm assuming that Steve is an Audi-driving IT manager with a log burner, a 5K bike and a coffee bean subscription. I don't have any sympathy either. In fact he shouldn't even be entitled to benefits! This is outrageous!

We don't know, so why are you asking? Are you trying to divert focus from Steve's problems? Are you trying to justify ignoring it?

Personally, I can't help Steve. His depression seems to be holding him back from helping himself - which given the information in this thread and the limited info in the article it seems he could do if only somebody could point him in the right direction.

It's an opinion piece in the Guardian. Of course I'm going to ignore it, same as I ignore opinion pieces in all the newspapers.

THE FORM DOES NOT SOLVE HIS PROBLEMS! IT ONLY COVERS HIM FOR A FEW MONTHS!

Great. So get it filled in then.
It might buy enough time to solve the problems. But if he doesn't try it'll do bugger all.

"Great. So get it filled in then."

Great. You offering to help him with it then?

So get it filled in then.

I think he needs some help.

Of course I'm going to ignore it

So that you can ignore Steve and his kids?

teamhurtmore - Member

Lets see NW?

So the government said, the key aims of the benefit cap are

increase incentives to work;
introduce greater fairness into the welfare system between those on out-of-work benefits and taxpayers in employment; and
make financial savings and incentivise behaviours that reduce long-term dependency on benefits.

Source: UK Government

You are confusing (deliberately or otherwise) the issue with a wider context. As the BBC summarised neatly at the time

The benefits cap is a limit on the amount paid to individuals.
The welfare cap is a limit on benefits spending overall

Different things - but a good illustration of why informed debate on this issue is normally impossible.

Pop quiz sensible question - when the benefit cap changes were announced, did the government say it was to reduce the deficit?
a) yes
b) obviously
c) none of the above

Oh a BBC summary, that's resolved that then! All I've got is the Conservative Party Manifesto, but that's obviously way less persuasive 🙄

Our deficit reduction plan has two phases. The first will see us continue to reduce government spending by one per cent each year in real terms for the first two full financial years of the next Parliament, the same rate as
over the last five years. That means saving £1 a year in every £100 that government spends
We don’t think there’s a business that couldn’t do that – and we don’t
think government, when it is spending your money, should be any different.
That will require a further £30 billion in fiscal consolidation over the next two years, on top of the £120 billion that we have already identified and
delivered over this Parliament. We will find £13 billion from departmental savings, the same rate of reduction as in this Parliament. We will find £12 billion from welfare savings, on top of the £21 billion of savings
delivered in this Parliament

The benefit cap is part of the £12bn.

Anything else?

"Can any of you Tories defend this?"

Well, clearly some are giving it a go. 🙄

Great. You offering to help him with it then?

EDIT
Also, having been in the benefits system myself, I'm fairly sure they'd point you in the right direction or offer assistance when you go to sign on.

No NW but thank you for proving that you are confusing (deliberately or otherwise) the benefit cap - and its aims - and the welfare cap. Easy to do mind....

To avoid confusion, the government said, the key aims of the benefit cap are

1. increase incentives to work;
2. introduce greater fairness into the welfare system between those on out-of-work benefits and taxpayers in employment; and
3. make financial savings and incentivise behaviours that reduce long-term dependency on benefits.

In contrast lets see how Owen Smith approached the issue

He went on to say that the party is “”in favour of an overall reduction in the amount of money we spend on benefits in this country and in favour of limits on what individual families can draw down”. However he said that there needs to be a review of the party’s position to the cap in general.

This comes after yesterday at the TUC Congress Jeremy Corbyn, Labour’s new leader, said the party were tabling amendments to the Welfare Bill that would remove the idea of the benefit cap.

Council houses, private landlord rent cap, community work or training in return for benefits, compulsory parenting classes, fresh food instead of cash, fast food/ready meal tax and compulsory vasectomies after fathering 2 kids would be a start.
It seems a manifesto is easier than I thought. . . .

"compulsory vasectomies "

AKA Enforced Sterilisation. Hmm, the Nazis were big fans of such inhumanity...

Northwind; be warned that THM will try to drag you down an increasingly obtuse alleyway where even he won't be able to remember how he got there. 😆

I'm actually intrigued here. I'm just having a look at the housing benefit claim form (HCTB1) There's actually provision for someone else to do it for you.

Housing benefit was reformed in 2008(?) to become local housing allowance. Unfortunately, the government of the day ignored the advice of the civil service department that dealt with it on the ground when they pointed out that the proposals in the white paper would drive up private rental costs, and thus the welfare budget.

This then coincided with the crash and an increase in claimants on top of the increased costs, so the government of the day then started having to cut the budget, which thus penalises tns worst off.

The underlying problem is that successive governments of all colours have failed to provide social housing to those who need it, and wages have failed to keep up with the cost of housing as a result. Fix those two issues, somehow, and the benefits bill will start to fall.

Two thirds of HB claimants are in work - how ****ed upnis that for a system?

"I'm actually intrigued here. I'm just having a look at the housing benefit claim form (HCTB1) There's actually provision for someone else to do it for you."

Excellent! When are you going to go and help Steve then?

Excellent! When are you going to go and help Steve then?

If anybody actually wants to help Steve (& folk in similar situations) there are vacancies in Birkenhead...

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/support-us/volunteering/volunteering-opportunities_search/?q=birkenhead

It's a lengthy form for sure but nothing too tricky. It's about you, your family, your address, job, savings Etc. Like most Governmnet forms it's long winded but well laid out and has explanations where necessary.
A quick scan through reveals a checklist.
First thing on the checklist?
"Do not delay in sending this form in."

Excellent! When are you going to go and help Steve then?

You know what, I'll put my money where my mouth is. I have no contact details for him and I doubt I'd be able to get them but if someone can get me in contact with him (email in profile) I'll make the 500 mile round trip and do it. I've got a free weekday at the beginning of December. I'll freeze my ass off on the motorbike, but yeah. I'll do it. I'll buy him some time. All he has to do is ask.

Wasn't someone just a few weeks ago saying this was a notoriously left wing forum? Good lord, if this is left wing then I'm scared.

To answer the OP- if you're not a selfish **** with no empathy it's indefensible. If you are then it is.

"You know what, I'll put my money where my mouth is."

Good stuff. I'm sure if you offered your support via the Guardian journo who did the piece, your offer of support may get through to Steve. 🙂

https://mobile.twitter.com/chakrabortty

aditya.chakrabortty@guardian.co.uk

I'm just having a look at the housing benefit claim form (HCTB1)

Sure it's the same one? I assumed he was having to apply for some kind of emergency relief?

In danger of bringing in facts to this, sounded like a DHP (discretionary housing payment). Something administered by LAs and will remain in the hands of LAs, even when someone may have their housing paid by UC.

So that you can ignore Steve and his kids?

I think Steve and his kids are fictional. Created to whip up a frenzy of outrage at something that was actually news in early summer.

Besides, where is the kids mum? Does she have no responsibility at all?

Should she not? If the father was the absent parent, there would be a means of extracting cash from him.

Wasn't someone just a few weeks ago saying this was a notoriously left wing forum?

I'm relatively new around here, but from what i've seen so far, it certainly gives that impression a lot of the time.

I think Steve and his kids are fictional. Created to whip up a frenzy of outrage at something that was actually news in early summer.

Besides, where is the kids mum? Does she have no responsibility at all?

Should she not? If the father was the absent parent, there would be a means of extracting cash from him.

Besides, where is the kids mum? Does she have no responsibility at all?

Dead? Heroin addict? Mental institution? Destitue herself? Homeless? Have you no imagination or understanding?

Some people could probably do with walking a mile in other people's shoes as a form of education. It might make making offhand uneducated comments a little more difficult.

Can't disagree with that. Unfortunately there are folk on this forum who thinks this only applies to those with a certain point of view.

PP - I think it would be the DHP form not the HB form

https://www.wirral.gov.uk/sites/default/files/all/Benefits/Housing%20Benefit/Discretionary%20Housing%20Payment%20application%20form

Email sent.
Nice and polite, not trying to sound clever, genuine offer.

Seen the form in Ninfan's link.

I can see how it would be difficult to fill in. You have to build a case, without any guidelines as to what's acceptable or not (unless they are available elsewhere). Also it asks you if you've done other stuff first. You'd have to know about that other stuff in order to try and apply for it, but not managing to do that (which could be similarly difficult) then you'd be dissuaded from filling in this form because you wouldn't have adequate justification.

Looks like one of those forms where you'd need the help of someone who knows the system. I'm not sure I'd know what to do with it right now.

Email sent.

Good work Poddy. Let us know if the forum can help out. I'll do what I can but not really in a position to travel unless urgent.

Ninfan - Bloody hell thats only 4 pages! The one I found was 42!!!

Bravo Peter - proper ideas not band aids.

teamhurtmore - Member

No NW but thank you for proving that you are confusing (deliberately or otherwise) the benefit cap - and its aims - and the welfare cap. Easy to do mind....

To avoid confusion, the government said, the key aims of the benefit cap are

1. increase incentives to work;
2. introduce greater fairness into the welfare system between those on out-of-work benefits and taxpayers in employment; and
3. make financial savings and incentivise behaviours that reduce long-term dependency on benefits.

Ah so this is the new game is it? Just ignore it when someone corrects you, and repost what you've said before as if it's not been shown to be false? Righto. Just ignore the Conservative manifesto then, I'm sure it's not important.

To recap;
The benefit cap was announced as part of the £12bn welfare cut
The Manifesto stated in black and white that said cuts are part of their plan to reduce the deficit
You'd like to pretend otherwise.

Molgrips - Agreed. You gotta make it sound good. Have a think about how that can bbe done, I might need your input.

More than happy to help - email in profile and of course on FB - and whilst I know naff all about the benefit system I have google.

Looks like one of those forms where you'd need the help of someone who knows the system. I'm not sure I'd know what to do with it right now.

Top of the form...

[i]If you are having difficulties with housing, the Housing Option team can give you free, confidential help and advice on all housing matters. You can access this service from a One Stop Shop or on line at: www.wirral.gov.uk[/i]

https://www.wirral.gov.uk/housing/information-and-advice/housing-advice/stay-your-current-home

Brilliant.... So that's Steve sorted - well done STW, this place is genuinely uplifting sometimes
Now what about all the other 100s of thousands of unsupported vulnerable members of society?

depressed folk who find making a cup of tea a struggle and get overwhelmed by the thought of having to go and buy a new lightbulb

or my schizophrenic mate, Lisa - who believes that Louis Walsh is representing her in a televised court appeal when she watches X-factor

old folk who have leg ulcers deep enough to see exposed bone because they 'don't want to be a bother'

I reckon some of these folk have got enough on their plates already without the threat of homelessness... it's the switched on landlords with their get rich quick schemes that should be bearing the ****ing brunt here

have none of you that have led sheltered lives bothered watching Ken Loach's new film?

NW you remain confused. You posted information relating to a different issue (the government's plan not to spend as much over and above what they earn as before) while ignoring the precise aims of benefit cuts taken directly from the governments statement on the issue, (which falsify you point.)

And someone is playing games?!? Your first point mentioning me and austerity explains the context for your confusion - an ill-informed dig.

Actually, this is important and should not be trivialised in the way that you have done. Benefits have been misused by governments for far too long to mask LT structural issues. I would expect someone in further education to understand that. Clearly I am mistaken in that expectation.

Thanks goodness for more sensible and practical people like Peter.

One of the biggest problems the Uk is facing is coming home to roost. Maggie Thatcher let a load of people buy their council houses, future governments of all colours then did very little to ensure enough new affordable homes were built to rent or buy for those already here, then they opened the floodgates to EU and non-EU immigrants.

Consequently, buying and renting prices are getting out of control.

About the best chance most people will get if they don't have a mortgage now will be when their parents die, but this won't work for those with multiple siblings and some parents will be renting themselves.

The housing situation for our growing uk population is going to reach a crisis point very soon, then followed by an aging poverty crisis because we have spent virtually all our income putting a roof over our heads.

I had to fill in a government form today (online, mind - I'm bang into the 2000's, me).

It had a tick box. "Tick if you are unemployed or on a Pension".

I ticked the box.

The next box was "Enter your employers PAYE reference number or Pension number".

I ignored this and foolishly clicked "Next".

"Error: you need to enter your employers PAYE reference."

Er...

Um.

What they actually meant was enter your "most recent" employers reference number - it didn't actually say that anywhere (like in the help) and because I'd sat on me cross-bar funny, my crystal ball wasn't working.

kafkaesque. I give pity to anyone filling in government forms, esp. in times of privation and stress.

"Ah so this is the new game is it? Just ignore it when someone corrects you, and repost what you've said before as if it's not been shown to be false?"

Sadly, it's all THM appears capable of. 🙁

"Now what about all the other 100s of thousands of unsupported vulnerable members of society?"

Quite.

Anyone else been to see 'I Daniel Blake' at the cinema yet..?

It doesn't make for easy watching but should be required viewing for every wannabe politician.

Is this the correct thread to ask about problem tenants in my flats I rent out?

depressed folk who find making a cup of tea a struggle and get overwhelmed by the thought of having to go and buy a new lightbulb

or my schizophrenic mate, Lisa - who believes that Louis Walsh is representing her in a televised court appeal when she watches X-factor

old folk who have leg ulcers deep enough to see exposed bone because they 'don't want to be a bother'

would any of them genuinely be hitting the benefits cap? From what I've read you have to be on housing + job seekers + child benefit (which is the case of the guy in the article), but it doesn't sound like any of those three would be capable of looking after kids? I'm not saying they wouldn't be impacted by cuts overall, but not specifically this cut?

Anyone else been to see 'I Daniel Blake' at the cinema yet..?

It doesn't make for easy watching but should be required viewing for every wannabe politician.

Probably for an "unsuccessful" politician, but for one wishing to be successful in Brexit Britain possibly "Triumph of the Will" would be more useful...

would any of them genuinely be hitting the benefits cap?

My point was aimed more at the people suggesting that Steve should have pulled his finger out and sorted his life out like it's the easiest thing in the world..

All of the examples I gave are genuine cases of people that I know of personally, that have struggled to jump through the necessary hoops to gain access to and then maintain benefits claims

5lab. The BenCap is applicable to all benefits, in the case of the chap in the article he would be receiving child tax credit (in all likelihood) iro his children. There are a few tiny cases where child allowance is still paid by legacy (JSA and IS).

The BenCap is actually applied though by Local Authorities through the Housing Benefit, for boring reasons that are of little relevance 🙂

Unless of course an individual/household is on UC.

You can access this service from a One Stop Shop or on line at: http://www.wirral.gov.uk

What's a one stop shop?

teamhurtmore - Member

NW you remain confused. You posted information relating to a different issue (the government's plan not to spend as much over and above what they earn as before) while ignoring the precise aims of benefit cuts taken directly from the governments statement on the issue, (which falsify you point.)

It's incredible that you'd claim that the manifesto is talking about a "different issue". It says in black and white (as I quoted earlier) that the £12bn of welfare cuts are part of their deficit reduction plan. And the benefit cap which we're discussing here is part of that £12bn cut. Very simple facts.

Since you can't dispute this, all you can do is misrepresent my point, try to ignore it, or admit you're wrong- or lying. The first two aren't working so well are they?

What's a one stop shop?

http://bfy.tw/8VGk

It's very admirable what PP is doing, but we all know that it's one thing getting the form filled and a completely different thing either getting the cash in the first place and then maintain it as the DWP/Govt/agency of choice tries their hardest to prevent you from getting your hands on it.
If only it was as easy as filling in the form and sending it off.

What's a one stop shop?
http://bfy.tw/8VGk

I know how Google works ta, I was making a point.

4 school age kids gets him £250 a month in child benefit which would buy their food .I voted Tory when I spent 7 years as a single parent on income support.

From what I've read you have to be on housing + job seekers + child benefit (which is the case of the guy in the article), but it doesn't sound like any of those three would be capable of looking after kids?

That assumes that the decision to have kids is always arrived at after sensible consideration of one's life situation.

It's interesting how the thread of privilege runs quietly through this discussion. (er, and sometimes loudly)

In addition to being in a financially different place to the average MTB rider (ie skint), many people on benefits also do not make life decisions with the cool and rational intelligence of a successful IT manager. They may have grown up in care homes, or without good adult role models, or with substance or mental health issues. Etc etc. Or maybe they're just not that smart.

But the point is that many people end up in a mess because they don't have the basic life skills and decision making prowess that others take for granted. It's easy to imagine yourself in the shoes of someone who is skint. You can imagine what you'd do in that situation, and perhaps berate the likes of 'Steve' for not doing what you would have done. It's far harder to imagine being in that situation without all the knowledge you've built up over the last x years.

cool and rational intelligence of a successful IT manager.

😀

4 school age kids gets him £250 a month in child benefit which would buy their food .I voted Tory when I spent 7 years as a single parent on income support.

many people on benefits also do not make life decisions with the cool and rational intelligence of a successful IT manager

Not just people on benefits. I'm a complete **** up when it comes to doing anyything life-related. I've cost myself an ungodly sum of money by simply not filling in the right forms and trying to solve problems in stupid ways.

The ONLY reason I'm not in Steve's position is that by pure fluke I was born with an aptitude for certain tasks that are in demand into a family that allowed them to be nurtured.

It's not because I deserve it, or because I worked for it. It's just fluke.

I'll admit it, I'm completely lost now.

Best do some work instead.

clodhopper - Member
"compulsory vasectomies "
AKA Enforced Sterilisation. Hmm, the Nazis were big fans of such inhumanity...

It's incredible that you'd claim that the manifesto is talking about a "different issue".

No its perfectly credible, those are the facts

It says in black and white (as I quoted earlier) that the £12bn of welfare cuts are part of their deficit reduction plan.

It does. Correct (we can leave the fact that this plan envisages spending more than the government earns to a greater degree than most other developed nations to another austerity debate)

And the benefit cap which we're discussing here is part of that £12bn cut.

No its not - its another initiative altogether - I have copied the Government's aim for you twice. Hopefully a third time is unnecessary.

Very simple facts.

Indeed they are, which is why I am surprised that an educated person like cannot understand them.

Since you can't dispute this, all you can do is misrepresent the facts, try to ignore them, or admit you're wrong- or lying. The clock is ticking...

I'll admit it, I'm completely lost now.

Best do some work instead.

Now you're getting it...

😀 😀

teamhurtmore - Member

No its not - its another initiative altogether - I have copied the Government's aim for you twice. Hopefully a third time is unnecessary.

It caterorically is part of the manifesto's £12bn welfare cut to reduce the deficit, and you've said nothing which contradicts this- no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

"This government was elected with a mandate to implement further savings from the £220bn welfare budget. We will reduce the benefit cap, and have made clear that we believe we need to make significant savings from other working-age benefits. We will set out in detail all the steps we will take to bring about savings totalling £12bn a year in next month's Budget and at the spending review in the autumn."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33429390

But hey, it's only George Osborne, Iain Duncan-Smith and the Conservative Party manifesto that say so. What do they know about George Osborne, Iain Duncan-Smith and the Conservative Party's policies?

The failure of some in understanding the plight of others really is quite disappointing. Yes, the problems faced by Steve and similar may well look surmountable when you look at them with the same social and cultural capital which allows you to participate in a debate in a mountain biking forum. But it ignores the fact that Steve's in ability to extract himself from his situation is really a question of structure and agency. Before you dismiss or criticise someone else like this you need drive a mile in their Audi

^^ what he said.

And also that helpless people are very much caught in the crossfire.

No its not. There will be saving by introducing a cap for sure but that is a side benefit and not a significant one. If the Tories really believe that putting a cap on benefits is an integral part of deficit reduction then we are all doomed. Check your own link - £12bn cuts in the budget and how much will a cap save????

We know what the government's aim are - they publish them and I quoted them. There is a different initiative that focused on the role of benefits which has three clear aims. They cannot be clearer, however much you would like to ignore them.

And this should be the core of the debate instead of the normal claptrap. Benefits have failed here and across the developed world. They are a blunt tool that has been over-used. Among all the crap that IDS used to come out with (and still does) this was one area where he was making some sense. Work not benefits are the LT solution. But the former takes effort which governments prefer to shun. When they do, they should be encouraged, otherwise we condemn those at the bottom of the heap to a dismal future indeed.

I hope that none of the preachy sanctimonious, cold-hearted bastards on this thread ever find themselves coming into contact with the benefits system in a moment of genuine need.

Because of you believe the anecdotal shite that you read in the Daily Mail , and the government spew out, of an easily accessible life down the pub, the bookies, and watching Sky Sports on big tellies, then you're in for one hell of a rude awakening!

But then that kind of thing never happens to fine, upstanding, and deserving ... oh so very very deserving. .. Masters of the Universe - who owe absolutely nothing to simple good fortune, or priveledge of birth - like you, does it? So who cares? It happens purely to bone idle scrounging layabouts.

They deserve what they've got coming to them

So **** em, eh?

😯 have a pint binners and take 10 - thats an awful lot of stereotypes for one post 😀

Well with so many people going the extra mile to conform to them....

Actually - you must be in a bit of a fix, because ex Jezza the Labour Party have been largely in support of the benefit cap 😉

Not so much in a fix, as in total despair 😥

Cheer up you've got the Champions League to watch tonight - ooops, sorry wrong Manchester! 😉

Yunki I understand your list of needy cases. We spend £130bn pa on Welfare. That seems more than enough to support the most vulnerable, then the next most vulnerable .. the issue is where does that stop or is it an infinite budget ... which brings me onto;

Most of us understand a budget, we want a bike, we have X,
we spend X. The problem with Government spending and welfare is that you set rules and payment amounts without ever really knowing what the cost is. What Labour did was a classic example. They created and expanded various benefit payments at an estimated cost of Y (affordable they said) except reality has proven very different (calc wrong, environment different). Something had to change.

We can pay everyone a bit less, we can pay some less, we can stop paying some.

Or we can just keep finding more money from somewhere

Or we can just keep finding more money from somewhere

Why, is there something wrong with the Magic Money Tree?

I hope that none of the preachy sanctimonious, cold-hearted bastards on this thread ever find themselves coming into contact with the benefits system in a moment of genuine need

I hope they do...

We can pay everyone a bit less, we can pay some less, we can stop paying some.

Or we can just keep finding more money from somewhere

Of £258bn welfare spending in 14/15, £108bn was on pensions. Given that's increased by 25% in 4 years, I think we should be addressing that first.

Of £258bn welfare spending in 14/15, £108bn was on pensions. Given that's increased by 25% in 4 years, I think we should be addressing that first.

EDIT: Sod it.

jambalaya - Member

Or we can just keep finding more money from somewhere

ninfan - Member 

Why, is there something wrong with the Magic Money Tree?

Here's a thought, it's a very odd one, but it could work........

Raise income tax?

Benefits are an insurance.
An insurance that stops more in Steve's situations from knicking your bikes. And cars. And breaking in to your house. And mugging your grandma.
Think long and hard about what some of you wish for