Tumbled Logic

Capped

A small note regarding the “£26k benefits cap”:—

Lots of people seem to be talking as though the benefits being paid are exclusively (or, at the very least, predominantly) to those seeking work. In other words, if they found work then these benefits would go away. This is the justification for capping to an “average” salary — pay too much in benefits to the unemployed, then you’re providing a disincentive to finding work.

First of all, it’s worth noting the fact that the number unemployed massively outstrips the number of vacancies. Even if everybody were trying their absolute damnedest to get “back into work”, the majority of those unemployed wouldn’t be able to.

Second, for those over 25, the amount paid as Jobseeker’s Allowance is £67.50 per week, and if you’re a couple over 18 both claiming, you’ll get £105.95 a week.

These two pieces of information alone are enough to tell you that the premise of the cap is flawed. The most you can claim as an able-bodied individual in unemployment benefits is £3,510 a year, or £5,509.40 as a couple.

This, by my reckoning, still leaves in excess of £21,000 which is being paid to some of these layabouts.

Let’s deal with the easy stuff: premiums. These boost Jobseeker’s Allowance payments if you suffer from a disability (premiums range from £14.05 to £55.30 for an individual, or £20.25 to £110.60 for a couple, depending upon the severity of the condition) or if you’re a carer. Even with this, we’re still some way off our target.

Other benefits — and this includes council tax relief — aren’t paid on the basis of being out of work, but on the basis of suffering from a debilitating medical condition, or having some specific status (i.e., being a carer, being a student), having children who suffer from a debilitating medical condition, or having a low income. There are caveats, deductions and caps in various places depending upon how much you (and your partner) earns, and whether you have any savings. Finally, Child Benefit is a (relatively modest) fixed amount.

The thrust here is that with the bulk of these “benefits” (which really shouldn’t be called that, as most of them are compensatory in nature) aren’t dependent upon unemployment at all, but on either disability or low income.

This shifts the goalposts somewhat. It’s not about “getting back into work” at all; instead it’s “don’t be disabled”, “don’t have disabled kids” — or kids at all! — or “get a better job”.

Is that really what you want? Really?