Something for the Nats to consider: a benefit ceiling

Who would have guessed?   You pay people less free money, and some are finally motivated to go get a job.

The new cap on benefits payments for the unemployed has forced thousands of people to find work instead of living off the state, new research will reveal this week.

Four detailed studies from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will deliver the most comprehensive evidence so far that the benefits cap is encouraging people to move off welfare and into jobs.

The households that have lost the most in benefits payments since the cap was introduced in April 2013 are the most likely to have begun working for a living, the research concludes.

Claimants who saw their benefits cut by £200 a week or more were three times as likely to have found work after a year as households whose benefits were not affected, the findings suggest.

Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, said the evidence showed the Conservatives were right to plan to cut the benefits cap further.

I think there is a kind of symmetry to increasing the minimum wage at the same time as decreasing (or capping) the unemployment benefit, don’t you?   It just seems… fair.

More than 30 per cent of claimants whose benefits were reduced by £200 per week or more had found jobs.

The DWP said more than 50,000 households have had their benefits capped since April 2013. Some 12,000 of these are no longer affected by the cap because they have found work or are no longer claiming housing benefit.

The policy caps the amount claimants aged from 16 to 64 can receive in housing benefit, jobseekers’ allowance, incapacity benefit, and child benefit, among other benefits.

Before the cap was introduced, fewer than 300 of the highest claiming families received more than £9 million in benefits each year.

One of the studies concluded that claimants whose benefits are cut by the cap are 41 per cent more likely to go into work than those who receive just below the maximum amount in benefits.

Almost four in 10 people affected by the cap – 38 per cent – told researchers that they were doing more to look for work as a result of the policy.

It’s just common sense.  If you pay people to lie around, they’ll lie around.   And this will free up some money for Paula to target towards those who need a hand up, not a hand out.

One interviewee told the researchers: “It gave me the shock of my lives. But it’s given me the kick I need. I can see what the gentleman was saying, why should we pay for your lifestyle?

 

– The Telegraph

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • conwaycaptain

    IDS another Old Conway. We get everywhere!!!

  • LabTested

    So the parents went out & got jobs. Capping benefits reduces child poverty.

  • Jmac

    A high minimum wage increases unemployment.

    • Kevin

      When the average joe gets a wage increase he goes out and spends it which stimulates the economy leading to more growth.

      • James

        In leftie la-la world this is true; but it takes significant amounts of time for this to feed through and therefore you get an increase in unemployment – especially amongst the unskilled and inexperienced.

        If you have to increase minimum wage then you need to make sure that 1) you don’t lift it too high, 2) you have lower “youth rates” and 3) you do it at a time when there is close to full employment (unemployment levels around 4%).

    • cows4me

      Dead right Jmac . If the government didn’t take so much tax off the productive sector to pay for benefits I’ll bet the farm that wages would be higher. The minimum wage is a crock of crap, there should be no such thing. It’s socialist la la policy that stifles employment. I’m sure news like this will go down like a cart load of crap for our lunatic mates on the left.

    • Luis Cannon

      Conversely a low minimum wage is an incentive to upskill to a better paid position. That then creates a position for the next entrant into the workforce. Any benefit should be set at a rate that encourages people to go on the minimum wage with help to upskill if necessary.

  • Kevin

    The problem is there is a portion of society that you don’t want out working because when they do they cause nothing but headaches for the people employing them and cost more to employ than what they make. Those sort you just want to throw enough money at to keep them for causing trouble.

    • exactchange

      Totally agree, though not all high maintenance / unproductive employees have come off benefits. But even if some do start work they probably won’t last the 90 days. So back onto a capped benefit.

  • Bart67

    I do not know of any employee who will increase a person’s wage or salary because they have had another child, so why is that true for people on a bemefit?

  • Whitey

    I thought our jobseekers’ benefit was already capped, but I could be wrong. I definitely think the DPB should be capped, and those who have another kid while on it should not get any extra money.

    • exactchange

      There is a huge number of beneficiaries having another baby while on a benefit – 4800 in 2010. (May be more up to date numbers.) These parents are now required to look for work when the baby is 12 months old and the next oldest child is 5 or older.

      I wonder how that policy is working.

      “Meanwhile, in 2010 more than 7.5 per cent of live births – 4800 of 63,900 – were babies born to solo parents on the Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB) and Emergency Maintenance Allowance.”

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8450617/Beneficiaries-having-babies-reason-for-reform

      • LabTested

        The UK is looking at limiting the child benefit to 2 children. This is being driven by cost cutting but also .. it could also “help behavioural change” in what appeared to be a suggestion that it could discourage people struggling with their finances from having more children.

        This is just common sense. The government should not be incentivising people to pop out more kids while they are on a benefit

        http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/14/child-benefit-limited-two-children-iain-duncan-smith

        • Whitey

          That’s a very good idea. We should do that here.

      • ex-JAFA

        The woman who used to live across the road from me was a “professional breeder”. Every time her youngest looked like it might go to school soon, she got herself pregnant again so she could maintain her lifestyle. She tried to rope me into this once, and other neighbours and I had to warn the bloke who bought my house to keep his pants on around her!

        • mommadog

          I have one the same living next to me. Her youngest is now 2 yrs. Several Dads amongst the kids. I expect her to have another within the next 2 years. The only hope is that she is getting too old and not so fertile but I don’t think she is as old as she looks. Sad thing is her 9 year old (with friend) was talking to me over the fence one day and said that she wants to have a baby when she grows up. The friend with her wanted to get a job and travel. The friend said her mother told her to have adventures as there is lots of time to have babies. Two different households and attitudes.

    • James

      The UK cap applies to the sum of all benefits received; so even if you qualify for additional benefits (housing allowance, child benefit etc) then you can’t receive more than a certain amount across all benefit classes.

      • Whitey

        Ah, of course. Definitely something we should do here.

        • James

          Definitely; although at £350 per week ($700) for single people and £500 per week ($1,000) for families the cap is still pretty high in the UK (even taking into account cost of living).

          • Whitey

            Wow, that is high.

  • R&BAvenger

    It would be a sensible change. You have ex-number of kids while on a benefit. That’s all we pay for. Any additional ones produced while ‘on’ a benefit is your problem.

  • SNAFU

    I can personally testify that this will work. during university I didn’t bother getting a part time job because my interestfree living costs loan was enough to get by on. it is only now that i have finished for the year that i am working 2 jobs and having the working bug. nothing better that working and making money.

  • Jonathan P

    I await the day with baited breath that you all discuss how to curb tax evasion and tax fraud with such vigor given that it is a far larger problem.
    But by all means, wail on the easy target if it will make you feel better.

    • Luis Cannon

      So I suppose if tax evasion and tax fraud were eliminated more handouts could be given to the lazy and irresponsible. Perhaps you might like to consider also whether the fathers shown on birth certificates should support the children they bring into the world.

      • Jonathan P

        I’d like to see tax fraud and evasion given as much spotlight and treated with the same vitriol as benefit fraud.
        I hate both and want to see both tackled, they are both thieving scum as far as I am concerned. As for the birth certificate issue, of course they should, you shouldn’t be able to account your way out of responsibility like so many people so.

  • FredFrog

    For years, getting up the duff was a way many female 16 year olds used to get their own place. After the introduction of a free council house/flat for single mothers, the rate of teenage pregnancy soared. The law of unintended consequences.

    Unfortunately that is they way of the left. They are so naive that they believe human nature will not take over.

29%