Nick Clegg

[LondonMix]

Much worse than I realised! No idea where to get the 1950s budget but I think its fair to state over 60s make up much larger percentage of the population now than they would have then and that this demographic change is a major contributor to the ballooning welfare expenditure...

[DJKillaQueen]

Absolutely, and I think everyone understands that. There's worse to come of course with a third of the working population having no private pension provision, in addition to the unemployed. The government recently anounced a new state subsidised private sector pensions scheme, but it is of course optional, bound to fail for all but anyone in long term and stable employment, and comes a bit to late to stave off the immediate crisis.

The other point to make is that that aging population are also voters so any government is wary of cutting too much in this section, another reason perhaps why the truly poor 12% are subject to the overwhleming bulk of the cuts to welfare reform. That to me is unforgivably unfair and totally in the self interest of the government making the cuts.

If we look at the second largest part of the welfare bill....child credits and allowances, that too is an area being left relatively untouched by the spread of cuts. Why do we reward families for the number of children they have? A family with five children and an income of 50k is eligible for family tax credits...why? Child benefits were originally designed to lift children out of poverty but they have become a way of making children affordable. If we must give tax credits to working families then why can't it be limited to two children and the poorest families only?

[DJKillaQueen]

This might interest you LondonMix

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03228.pdf

It states....

'There are 10.3 million people aged 65 and over in the UK. This is an 80 per cent increase over six decades, from in 1951.'

[Jessie]

child tax credits have been completely slashed. I am a single parent on an okay wage but not great for London and mine were slashed. I think us working parents have taken quite a hit, thank you very much.

[DJKillaQueen]

No one is suggesting those on low incomes lose help. But you know as well as I do that a family with an income with 50k is not on a low income. My argument is that child benefits should be means tested more than they currently are. What do you class as an ok wage? I don't know what you earn but I can guaratee that any cut in benefit hasn't reduced your household income by 25% unlike those on the poorest rung of benefits.

If benefits were taken away from those who truly do not need them, then they can be refocused on those that do....and you may well be one of those who would benefit from a more efficient allocation of welfare.

Ideally of course, I'd like to see the minimum wage increased and something be done to control rents, so that people in work can afford them without the need for benefit.

In principle though, I am against giving a benefit to someone for every child they have. It is a choice to have children, and many of the benefits given are to compensate for absent parents who take no responsibility for the children they produce.

[LondonMix]

I think anyone who reads the first link DJ posts will get a reality check on "high London wages". A household income of 60k puts one in the top 17% of households in London. So even a single parent that loses 100% of child benefit (you start losing a part of benefit at 50k and 100% of the benefit by 60k) is still relatively well off by London standards. Its difficult to argue that a household in the top 20% of household incomes in London deserves to recieve benefits in the current economic climate.

Everyone in London feels broke because no matter what you earn, as most people live in a neighbourhood that sucks up most of their disposable income after childcare. I have colleagues in South Ken, who are still renting with 2 kids and feel like they don't have a penny to spare due to the high cost of living in London. I think this is because prices went up so quickly that people already feel like they have been forced out of areas they always assumed they'd be able to afford.

[Jessie]

My child benefit hasn't been touched, tax credits have. If i was on 50 or 60k then I wouldn't have the gall to claim any benefit from the government. The newly deemed acceptable wage by the wonderful UK govt to receive working tax credits is ?26,000. Make of that what you will.

[LondonMix]

Sorry, misread your post.

[Huguenot]

Depends on your scenario Jessie.

So far as I can tell child benefit is different to child tax credit is different to working tax credits isn't it?

Working tax credits are available for all to help those on low income, regardless of whether they have children or not.

?26,000 seems a very reasonable top threshold for this. It's not exactly low income.

If you feel you are entitled to more because you have children or childcare costs, then you should be complaing about child benefit or the child tax credit shouldn't you?

[Jessie]

i don't feel entitled to anything, i was just saying that parents *have* been hit with the cuts.

Before the tories i received tax credit, after the tories I didn't - yes, you're right, it was child tax credit i was receiving, not working tax credit. Doesn't hit me too badly, but I know plenty of other parents, single or otherwise, who've been hit badly by the cuts to tax credits.

[LondonMix]

Jessie, forgive me as I have never qualified for this and am less familiar with the changes. However, I am trying to reconcile the "hit" you mention with this summary I have found in the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17126987

It appears that you need to be on a household income of at least 40k to be worse off following the changes and that for the poorest there has actually been an increase. The BBC's information is often outdated though so I'd be interested in hearing more on this if you have different information.

Thanks,

LM

[Jessie]

As the BBC report states: "The key point is that the income cut-off for tax credits will be based on individual circumstances and therefore will be different for everyone."

It's a very complicated system and all I have to back my argument is anecdotal - people I know who are not on ?40k and had their credits slashed. I'm not trying to defend or attack the system, or the recepients of tax credits. All I wanted to say is that parents *have* had their benefits hit by the cuts, for right or for wrong.

[LondonMix]

Oh I agree. Almost everyone has been hit in someway by the cuts (myself included!)

I wish I could find a really clear picture of the cuts on how they are affecting different groups somewhere so I could get a better feeling about which policies I support. Right now, I only understand the ones the affect me directly (and largely support them).

Anyone have a credible source?

[DJKillaQueen]

Some insight here LM in this CAB lecture aid.....

http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=47155d9d-9f6f-4894-a759-8a098a68774c&groupId=10171

Note the pie chart on page 5 which perfectly illustrates my point about disproportionate cuts to those on disibility benefits and in receipt of Disibility Living Allowance.

Part of me thinks that the government have cycnically complicated the reforms to make it dificult to measure the impact in some areas. I think that reforms to the child tax credit system do illustrate this. What can be said though is that in spite of all these cuts, the welfare bill is actually going up.

In the disibility sector, the company employed to assess people (and paid ?400million to do so), Atos are failing everyone but the most severely ill, that comes before them. Most claimants are appealing (which costs money) and a high percentage of those are successful at tribunal (again costing more money) before having their benefits reinstated and back paid. Those who succeed in this process are then called in within a month for another assessment, which they fail, and the process starts again. How on earth is that saving money? And what is it doing to those vulnerable people it affects?

[Chippy Minton]

The final decisions on the Welfare Reform Act still haven't been finalised - they will be made this month - but the current proposals indicate there's still plenty of changes and benefit cuts to come.

Next April will see Personal Independence Payment replacing Disability Living Allowance; Council Tax Benefit cut; Benefit Cap introduced; Bedroom Tax introduced; Housing Benefit rates changed to follow CPI instead of market rates and the Social Fund abolished.

It won't be until well into next year when we can get an idea on how everyone stands to be affected.

[DJKillaQueen]

A lot of DLA receipients have already seen that part of their benefits reduced or taken away altogether.

But indeed, the bedroom tax (as you calll it) and changes to the way council tax benefit is set (by the local authority, not the DWP) is going to really hit the poorest hard.

And you are right Chippy. We can not measure any impact until all of those reforms are in place.

[LondonMix]

What is the bedroom tax?!

[DJKillaQueen]

From April 2013, if a claimant of HB is under occupying their property they will lose a % of their housing benefit. This is something that will affect all kinds of people, from the single person to the recently widowed, and becomes complicated for children under 16 who are expected to share with a sibling.

Examples here.....

http://www.riverside.org.uk/national/big_changes/changes_to_housing_benefit_th.aspx

[Chippy Minton]

The deduction will be 14% for the first extra bedroom and 25% for those with more than one spare bedroom. It will allow for one bedroom for each person or couple living as part of the household, with the exceptions of children under 16 of the same gender expected to share; children under 10 expected to share regardless of gender; and a disabled tenant or partner who needs non resident overnight carer will be allowed an extra bedroom.

The Dept of Work & Pensions' impact assessment estimates that 660,000 working age social tenants will be affected which is 31% of the working age benefit claimants living in social housing.

[DJKillaQueen]

That's some 220,000 then, that may need to seek downsized accomodation from their HA or LA.....accomodation that doesn't exist in those numbers....or face paying 14 or 25 % of their rent from their benefits/ low wages. Do the government even know how small the second and third bedrooms are in many social housing flats. Putting two 15 years old in a small bedroom with no room for wardrobes or drawers is asking for trouble.

[LondonMix]

Edited to say" Cross-post with DJ. I see its the logistics that pose the biggest concern

Do you think that the occupation suggestions are unreasonable, that it will be difficult for people to move into smaller accomodation, or both?

I think under-occupation should be addressed. Hopefully, they will include a time frame in which you can move before benefits are withdrawn (particularly in the case of a change in circumstances like a death or children leaving home). I imagine downsizing might be bit of a logistical nightmare though...

As for kids sharing below the age of 16 is concerned, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable. My partner's siblings grew up sharing, as did my sisters and my cousins. Its less than ideal but its hardly cruel or unusual.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think it depends on those sharing and the size of the property.

We have archaic laws on overcrowding in the UK. When the 1985 Housing Act came to be, with it's 1987 and 1989 ammendments, it addressed pretty much everything but size of occupancy. As a result we still have laws that state that children under a certain age don't count when measuring occupancy because they can sleep in a bath, or kitchen. Those laws date back to 1850 when entire families living in one room was common, and because of those laws, local authorities are not obliged to rehouse families with small children living in one bedroomed flats for example (and yes, I know of several families in this situation and until rencently, a family of five who now thankfully have been able to move).

We have the smallest planning regulations regarding minimum dwelling size in Europe. When a family lives on top of themselves (literally in the case of children sharing tiny bedrooms with barely the space for a bunk bed) then there can be problems. Try doing homework in a household like that for example!

Under occupancy can be addressed, but there has to be options for those to take if they want to downsize....so we can agree on that.

But for someone who holds the views I have regarding children, poverty, education and social mobility....it is important to me that children have stable home lives which includes the right environment for learning and study. Overcrowding can be a real hindrance to that. All the evidence historically backs that up too.

[LondonMix]

Yes, making it a bit more detailed such as children can only share a double bedroom for example makes sense. Still, all the people I mentioned who grew up sharing rooms went to uni, are now professionals etc. There are a lot of people in private housing (even affluent parents), that force their children to do the same so I don't really see it as a tremendous hardship.

I totally agree that children need stability but I feel a bit of a hypocrite telling affluent parents to move home if they can't afford to live with the new cuts while suggesting it will do lasting harm to other families / children.

Either way, if the housing isn't available, then clearly no one should be penalized. You should have a period in which you need to move subject to the authorities being able to find you suitable accommodation.

[DJKillaQueen]

It's not so much about children having to share (that's not the issue), it's the size of the space they are expected to share. The average second and third bedrooms in social housing can only house a single bed, or single bunk beds, and not much else. And flats have no storage space elsewhere, for clothes, books, and the variety of things teenagers and children have, and need.

Hence my points about what constitutes as overcrowding, and can be defined as living on top of each other. And yes, this is an issue that can affect families from every part of the spectrum.

Sadly the government doesn't care if there's affordable and suitable alternate accomodation available or not. It simply wants the welfare bill cut, and it wants it cut now, whatever the impact.

[LondonMix]

Yes, agree guidelines regarding space should be updated introduced! Do you know how long families will be given to start the process of finding alternative housing when their family size changes?