Housing Benefit Cap

[ladylola]

Or set the cap below what someone on minimum wage actually takes home
or abolish income tax for everyone and put it all on vat.

 

[big-all]

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?

not sure how that would work they would have to pay them more to cover the tax

the way the system works is based on what the government say you need to live on
they then take income like pensions interest on amounts above £6.000 and deduct from there £65 or £95
they then take your outgoings like interest payments on loans or morgages housing costs then add these on

they then pay the standard amount to every one on unemployment benefit
£65 per adult something like £95 a couple this is to cover all food all bills and buy clothes[except housing and council tax ]
they get extra money per child [child benefit £20 tax credits about £35 for 1 child]more for the first child less per subsequent child/children

so a married/cohabeting couple with a child get around £150 a week a single parent with a child around £120 to feed clothe and pay all the bills except housing and council tax so fall below the tax threashold

 

[Alarm]

Amusing debate, lets take London for instance. You suggest people move out to get work. What if you were born here. Work is as limited here as in a fluffy postcard rural village. Rents and basic food stuffs more expensive.
I rent privately and thats still 800PCM plus all bills. And I`m lucky this is a good rate for what I have. Cannot afford to get a mortgage. So I move to fluffy postcard land and can afford a house, wrong because I now earn 50p a week for the same hours.
Housing costs are retrospective to the local area.
As it happens a single person has a possible housing benefit of £250.00 a week with the new caps in place at this moment in time, it was £400.00. On average £250 will get you a bedsit.
I agree there is a large amount of people leeching the system, but the majority are in hardship and the meagre benefits they get do not facilitate wide screen tv`s and 3 holidays a year.
In full time employment I have not had a holiday for 3 years now!
Some here are just waffling for the sake of it and not versed in all the facts

 

[Mickymoody]

The dole send a letter stating "By LAW (they don't capitalise it), we will pay you £60 a week. But then TAKE OFF money.

And the new rules, refuse charity work, which has been in place for years BTW, you lose your benefit anyways? How is this 'work for your money', new news? And you are treated like crap, because the usual workers are CS workers sent there by a court.

 

[joe-90]

Amusing debate, lets take London for instance. You suggest people move out to get work. What if you were born here. Work is as limited here as in a fluffy postcard rural village. Rents and basic food stuffs more expensive.
I rent privately and thats still 800PCM plus all bills. And I`m lucky this is a good rate for what I have. Cannot afford to get a mortgage. So I move to fluffy postcard land and can afford a house, wrong because I now earn 50p a week for the same hours.
Housing costs are retrospective to the local area.
As it happens a single person has a possible housing benefit of £250.00 a week with the new caps in place at this moment in time, it was £400.00. On average £250 will get you a bedsit.
I agree there is a large amount of people leeching the system, but the majority are in hardship and the meagre benefits they get do not facilitate wide screen tv`s and 3 holidays a year.
In full time employment I have not had a holiday for 3 years now!
Some here are just waffling for the sake of it and not versed in all the facts

But is that the problem of the taxpayer? Why should a milkman in Hull earning way less than most in London subsidise people in London who don't work? Many weren't even born in the UK but decided that we need their company.

Why should the UK taxpayer pay the rent in Westminster of over 2 grand a week for such people? Why?

I'd like to live in Westminster but I can't afford it - so don't. So why should my taxes pay some foreigner to do just that? Why?

In the 70s rents were set by a Rent Officer to stop just this sort of thing happening - time we had them back.

Scrap benefits and offer them minimum wage and a guaranteed job - and let them live where they can afford. They can always change jobs if they want to.

 

[Fred76]

not sure how that would work they would have to pay them more to cover the tax

the way the system works is based on what the government say you need to live on
they then take income like pensions interest on amounts above £6.000 and deduct from there £65 or £95
they then take your outgoings like interest payments on loans or morgages housing costs then add these on

they then pay the standard amount to every one on unemployment benefit
£65 per adult something like £95 a couple this is to cover all food all bills and buy clothes[except housing and council tax ]
they get extra money per child [child benefit £20 tax credits about £35 for 1 child]more for the first child less per subsequent child/children

so a married/cohabeting couple with a child get around £150 a week a single parent with a child around £120 to feed clothe and pay all the bills except housing and council tax so fall below the tax threashold

That's slightly different to the point I was making. The government announced that they would introduce a £500 per week limit on benefits, which is actually slightly in excess of UK average earnings and someone on average earnings would have top pay tax and most probably wouldn't be entitled to any benefits, save perhaps tax credits.
There was a story in the papers about 2 weeks ago, which showed a single parent who was 29, never worked, had 5 children by 4 fathers and she said she would never work because she would have to earn £65000p.a. before tax to receive the same amount after tax as she currently received in benefits. She was complaining that the reduction to £500 per week would seriously affect her lifestyle.
Now as a tax payer, can you honestly accept that this is right?

 

[big-all]

if you take the housing costs out off the equation single parent £65 child benefit 1x£20 4x£17=£88 so £153 plus tax credits £90 so £243
yes i was sad enough to fill the form in as a single mother with 5 kids to find out her entitlement to tax credits lol
Start of content
Based on the information you have entered, your household may be entitled to the following tax credits award:-
Child Tax Credit
Child Tax Credit £4693.10

any way that is the minimum the government say they need to live on is £243[i assume poverty level] so that's why its not taxed

as an aside i personally think the average wage should not include the top and bottom 10% earners then it would be a much lower more realistic amount

 

[Fred76]

Not quite sure where you're going with that one.

If she's never worked she won't be entitled to any tax credits.

If the average Uk earnings were posted as a lower figure as you suggest the benefits would presumably be lowered to that level.

So do you think it's right that someone who has no intention of ever working is walking away with £35000 plus per year tax free?

 

[big-all]

its not her fault they sold off the council houses it is a legal requirement to supply her with housing if the only housing suitable is private then that's not her fault the council house she should be in was sold off
she doesn't have access to the rent money or if she does its passed to the private landlord

has she actually said she has no intention off working??

the average earning wont make a difference in fact it would make the amount look worse but i am not after taking sides just presenting situation as factual as i can from both sides

 

[joe-90]

The poor lamb.

 

[big-all]

please see edit joe in case its relevant

 

[Fred76]

has she actually said she has no intention off working??

Yes she did actually. Would you if you could get £35000 p.a tax free for not working.

 

[Fred76]

but i am not after taking sides just presenting situation as factual as i can from both sides

Not sure about that, your opinion seems pretty one sided to me.

 

[rightnwrong]

Or set the cap below what someone on minimum wage actually takes temporary rv housing or rv temp housing
or abolish income tax for everyone and put it all on vat.

Is there any choice that can do other than the 2 you'd said?

 

[ladylola]

There are always other options, it's just a case of which is the best option. Pay benifits at average wage rate and then tax the recipients. Or put the unemployed in vast labour camps and rent out their houses to others to pay for it all.
Simple fact is nobody has come up with a foolproof system which is why we are still having discussions about it. Any ideads that you may have will be welcome.
Oh and welcome to the forum , hope you will stay.