Why tell lies about the benefit cap?
Posted by Christie Malry on January 22, 2012 at 9:10 pm
It didn't take them long to start trotting out all sorts of nonsense about the proposed cap on benefits.
The worst hit, of course, are large families in the south-east, where rents are higher. Even in Tolworth, described by the Evening Standard as the "scrag end of Kingston borough", a four bedroom house will give you little change from £400 a week. Cutting housing benefit to £100 a week – which is broadly what the cap means if you have four children – makes life impossible. After rent, council tax and utilities, a family with four children would have 62p per person per day to live on. That is physically impossible.
Do you see what they've done there?
They've worked out the total benefits package that a family of four would get. Then they've made up some numbers for what this family would have to live on. Then they've complained that this would leave the family with only 62p per person per day.
Of course, this family doesn't have such a paltry amount. They've actually got £11.87 [(£26,000 / 6) / 365] per person per day to live on. And every single penny of that £11.87 comes from the good grace of working taxpayers.
Now it's true that rents are expensive. And that utilities are expensive, so a great deal of that £11.87 needs to be spent on those items. But they're also expensive for those who work. A family of four would need to earn a great deal more than £26,000 in order to actually bring home £26,000 because they have to pay tax on their income. And they would still face the same pressures of expensive housing and expensive utilities. It's an appalling insult to those who work to pretend that the real poverty is faced by those who are propped up to the tune of £11.87 every single day for each of their six non-working members.
And pretending that it's not £11.87, but is really only 62p, makes that insult a thousand times worse. Shame on you, Tim Leunig.
I don't find the 62 pence per day particularly erroneous or misleading. That is the amount that could well be left per day per person for food according to the original analysis (depending on what values are calculated for utilities).
Sidestepping the politics of envy that seem to pervade this topic it should be remembered that throughout the 1980s benefit dependence was encouraged because the then (Tory) government acknowledged there were insufficient jobs for everyone. Indeed, I even recall Peter Lilly, the then minister for employment, poo-poo ing suggestions that significant cuts in public spending could be made by getting the unemployed back to work. "It only costs £9 billion per year", he responded dismissively to his Labour opponent. He did not seem to mind one bit that vast swathes of the population were languishing on benefits. His government even encouraged many to transfer onto sickness benefits on the basis that they would disappear from the unemployment count.
The welfare bill is too high, that point most can agree on. However, the size of the bill is the creation of governments, not of the claimants. it is not a particularly agreeable sight watching the current witch hunt against benefit claimants. One does not have to be a Communist to hold this view.
They are not made up - they are all from govt sources/commercial suppliers!! The 62p figure is exactly what I said it was - the amount left, per person, per day, after rent, council tax and utilities. A full breakdown will be on the CentreForum website blog tomorrow morning.
The person on £26k earnings, with the same family size and rent, would get approx £23k in in work benefits, net of tax and NI. So no, the person on £26k does not face the same pressures, because they are on £49k net, after tax, NI and benefits. (CB, WTC, CTC, CTB, HB). Google turntous and enter the figures yourself if you don't believe me!