£26k is the current maximum, the vast majority would not be near that amount, especially as (I think already?) they cap Child Tax Credit to the first two children so even large families don't end up with the massive payments they used to if, say, they had like 8 or 9 kids. A single mother or couple in most areas of the UK with one or two children won't be at the "cap level" anyway. I don't necessarily disagree with there being a cap overall - but I think the current levels (£26k London, £23k rUK) is actually as realistic as the cap can be without causing major hardship in many cases. Lowering it further is needless. A large enough number affected for it to be a real issue - but (in economic terms) saving an amount of money that is completely negligible.
The cap also doesn't include earned income. This is an important factor. E.g. the "household income" cap for someone EARNING £10k would be £33k (£23k benefits + £10k earnings) but again that's a cap not a "guaranteed amount", it all scales in various ways, but basically for the mostpart it is ALREADY the case that it is impossible to be better off out of work than in work - again, with the exception being, having a job that requires running a car (whereas an unemployed person could take it off the road) or a job so far away that travel costs are prohibitive.
It's not an easy system to comprehend but personally I think that's why it makes such an EASY target for politicians - they know that most people don't know how it works. It's a double-edged sword. This will sound a touch judgemental maybe, but... in my opinion, for the mostpart, people who CAN comprehend it aren't often in the position to have to deal with it extensively... and the people who DO have to deal with the system over the long term, to be blunt, tend not to have the education level to be able to untangle it all (because the system is a disjointed shambles) and just accept that they get whatever the latest letter says they get.
In fact, the main reason I know it all so in-depth is because we used to run a parenting forum and there were families in all sorts of circumstances. Single mums, or families that had a good income but then Dad decided to leave and left Mum in a panic (a worryingly common occurrence), and there were countless threads with people asking for help because they simply couldn't understand all of it, so me being me (a kindly know-it-all
) I went through it all extensively. We were also still open when the very first caps were announced and there were a lot of people absolutely terrified of the consequences... although on THAT front, I do have to admit, the headlines are always sensationalist and it more often results in people being £10/£20 a week worse off rather than hundreds. The papers obviously focus on the most extreme examples, not the average family (as will be the case with the title of this thread; very few families will realistically lose "£100 a week").
If you have time / inclination, I'd recommend going here:
http://www.entitledto.co.uk/
And simply "invent" a few scenarios to enter into the calculator. Single mum of one, unemployed. Family of four, one in work on low income. Go back and change it to medium income. Add an extra child. Factor in a disability. etc. and see how it affects the totals.
One thing to always remember though, when the totals seem high at the end, is that these figures usually include Housing Allowance / Council Tax Allowance. It seems like a larger figure until you take £6-to-10 thousand out straight off the bat.
On that note, it's true that the figures are skewed (extensively) by inflated rental prices in London and the South of England. Worth remembering in those cases though, is that saying "If you can't afford to live in London simply move away!" is a total non-argument. Social effects (moving people away from their support network, and therefore their ability to build a self sufficient life AT ALL) aside... what do people imagine happens to London if all of the low-wage workers migrate North? The city functions on the back of people who "can't afford to live there", and would grind to a halt without them. Major issue. There needs - NEEDS - to be a HUGE investment in good quality social housing around London that belongs
permanently to the local councils and CANNOT be bought up by rich investors. I have no idea why this isn't a priority. It would cut the "London housing benefit bill" by literal
billions.