Let us imagine two hypothetical families living in London: The first is composed of a mother, a father, and two children aged 7 and 11; the second is identical, but with four children, twins aged 3, a child aged 7, and a child aged 11. Until two years ago, the mother and the father in each family worked, and earned a wage enough to rent accommodation privately without claiming housing benefit. Two years ago, the mother in each family became ill and was unable to work, so had to give up her job. Last year, the company that the father worked for went bust, and he was made unemployed. Both families then began to rely on benefits in order to survive. That is, benefits covered everything from rent to food to heating. The mothers in these families are now well, but along with the fathers cannot find work despite looking for it. Due to the conditions of the jobs market, it seems unlikely that any of the parents will find work in the near future. The first family, with two children, receives in total £25,000 in benefits a year; the second, with four children, receives £30,000. They receive these amounts because they are what the government currently deems necessary for these families in order to pay for what they need to survive. Most of the money goes directly to the private landlord who owns the two properties in which the families live, as although the families are on the list for council housing there are no suitable properties for them in the area in which they live. The rest of the money is divided between bills, food, and clothes.
On 15 July, a new government policy will be imposed upon them, capping benefits at £26,000. Consequently, the family with four children will face a shortfall of £4,000, based on their current spending on necessities. The first family, on the other hand, will maintain its benefits at the previously given level.
The question for the government, one which I am yet to see answered, is how they can justify to the children of the second family that they should have a more impoverished and harder childhood than the children of the first.
I am willing to post up any answers I receive.
Some background to the problem
The justification given by the government for the benefits cap is that no household ought to receive more in benefits than the average family earns. What this means is that a family that is in a demographic extreme (for example, a family with many children), or families that have complex needs which have been previously aided by benefits payments, are compared to an average family, with one or two parents and 2 children, all of whom are healthy.
I would be grateful if people could share this post on facebook and twitter.