Benefit cap goes before the Lords.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy

I'd rather on the side of the righteous whoever they maybe, Simon Hughes, Bishops, Leigh Bowery, Lib Dem peers etc...

Well thankfully you're in a tiny minority.

Blessed are the simple-minded.

[garinda]

Good lord.

A holy roller, with a grip on reality.

Praise be!

Welfare reform: Lord Carey attacks bishops opposed to benefit cap - Telegraph

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy

I'd rather on the side of the righteous whoever they maybe, Simon Hughes, Bishops, Leigh Bowery, Lib Dem peers etc...

You missed the "self-" out.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Lord Carey is right...especially about the poverty of aspiration........there can be no doubt that this is what is the most worrying.
Material poverty can be overcome....you have to work hard at it(no-one promised that life would be easy. I was always told that things that were hard won were more valuable than things you achieved easily - personal experience confirms this) but it isn't insurmountable. Poverty of Aspiration means that you don't even want to try.

[ToffeeGuy]

First there will be a benefit cap, next will be NHS cap. A person will be able to claim up to the average and after that they will have to pay for their own medication, treatment, consultations etc.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Is this just something that you suspect, surmise, or have you evidence to prove this is what is planned.

Do you think we can hand out benefits to all and sundry who come here?
Don't you think 26K per year(which equates to something in the order of 32K per year after tax) is an overly large amount of money to claim in benefits?
If you answer the the last question is 'NO'...then would you advocate pensioners get a similar amount(pro rata)?
Pensioners are expected to live on much less than some of these idlers........OK, I know that from previous posts you have said that you think the majority of people have paid into the system....and deserve to get something back. There are people working unsocial hours who don't get anywhere near this amount and they manage.
What chance is there of getting people to go out to work if they can get 26K per year for sitting on their butts?
I am not happy that my taxes go to pay to keep these people in a lifestyle that I myself cannot afford.....but you obviously don't mind putting your hand in your pocket to help them out.

[ToffeeGuy]

I should have put hypothetically speaking.

The best comment I have read on the issue is by Mark Steel, which I agree with whole-heartedly.
Mark Steel: All aboard the London Eye, claimants! - Mark Steel - Commentators - The Independent

[ToffeeGuy]

An investment banker, a Daily Mail reader and a benefit recipient are sitting round a plate with 12 biscuits on it. The banker takes 11 biscuits, then turns to the Daily Mail reader and says: “Watch out – that scrounger is after your biscuit.”

[Less]

What I can't understand is these large figures paid out for rent.
While I am signing on my rent is being paid, because according to the authorities it is an average rent for the area I live in, now how do they define area?
Is it by street? by political ward? by town? or by the fact I live in a thoroughly depressed north west?
I know for example if I wanted to upsticks and move across town to be nearer to relatives and the rent was higher I would have to make up any higher rent from my benefits because it would have been my choice to move.
So how come a 'political asylum seeker', can move from a poor district of London, to a rather well off area, yet they get the full rent paid?
If I tried to move from here to Mayfair, the only way I could do it would be by getting a chance card in Monopoly, the powers that be would, quite rightly, refuse me the additional rent.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Having read the article, I now see where you took the analogy about the NHS from....although I think you may have altered it a little to fit the purpose of your point.
I mentioned a few posts back that much of the benefit for the claimants in the city would be to private Landlords........ and this would be easily reined in. The Landlords get exorbitant rents because they know that it is not politically sound to have people homeless...so benefits agencies pay up.
I am pretty sure that if the benefits agencies let it be known to the landlords that they were no longer going to fund these exorbitant rents, something would be done about it.
I am sure that Landlords prefer to have a smaller, but regular income, than have properties lying unoccupied and at risk of occupation by Moldovan /Roumanian squatters.

I have a friend (an ex colleague) who is a health visitor in Rochdale....the estate where most of her caseload is based, is one where those employed are in a minority.
The rest of the estate claim benefits to live. She tells me that they all have state of the art TV's.....mobile phones etc.
Yes......you are going to tell me that perhaps these are not paid for, or perhaps thay they were paid for before the household began to draw benefits...that might be the case, but she also tells me that some of these families have never ever been employed....and it galls her because she has trained and worked hard to get much less of a salary....and cannot afford the things that these people on benefits have.

So I guess it is down to your experience and contact with some of these claimants.

And you didn't answer my questions.

[ToffeeGuy]

As I understand it, a large proportion of the £26,000 plus benefits is made up of Child Benefit, which the person would be getting if they were working anyway. That's why the govt want to include child benefit in the £26,000 calculation or else otherwise it would not be worth implementing the reforms.

If the person is living in London I don't think £26,000 is excessive. I would find it very difficult to raise a family there on that. Again, as I think has been mentioned, the problem is a lack of affordable social housing (even in the most prosperous areas).

I agreed about the apparent injustice of people having wide-screen TVs, etc whilst on benefits. The road to unhappiness comes from comparing our own lives with those of others. There will always be someone better off or appearing to get away with it. At the end of the day the Health Visitor will have a sense of purpose and self-esteem in their job which the person on benefits will never have. And that is more important in life than a wide-screen TV. Glib, I know, but I think it's true.

[MargaretR]

I spent many years of my 35yr career (DHSS now DWP) visiting the homes of people on Supplementary Benefit/Income Support.

The majority were in that position due to circumstances beyond their control (ill health, redundancy, relationship breakdown).

The current publicity is centred on the minority who are misusing/abusing the welfare state, in order for your indignation to be voiced (which it has), so that the spending cuts get popular support - it's worked.

The resulting cuts will affect all claimants - deserving or otherwise, and I would like to remind you that in a recession, honest hard working people can find themselves reduced to a breadline existance - you maybe next.

The privatisation of some public services has meant that there are now companies exploiting the unemployed and taking government grants for doing it.

Abuse should be the target for action - that includes landlords, 'training' agencies, and unsrupulous employers who are using the recession to exploit the vulnerable.

[ToffeeGuy]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

I spent many years of my 35yr career (DHSS now DWP) visiting the homes of people on Supplementary Benefit/Income Support.

The majority were in that position due to circumstances beyond their control (ill health, redundancy, relationship breakdown).

The current publicity is centred on the minority who are misusing/abusing the welfare state, in order for your indignation to be voiced (which it has), so that the spending cuts get popular support - it's worked.

The resulting cuts will affect all claimants - deserving or otherwise, and I would like to remind you that in a recession, honest hard working people can find themselves reduced to a breadline existance - you maybe next.

The privatisation of some public services has meant that there are now companies exploiting the unemployed and taking government grants for doing it.

Abuse should be the target for action - that includes landlords, 'training' agencies, and unsrupulous employers who are using the recession to exploit the vulnerable.

100% agree, I have worked in some of the most deprived areas and hard times could happen to anyone.

I'd like to think that a few examples of people exploiting the system (as highlighted by the right-wing press) don't make us a less compassionate society. I have also visited homes were people are claiming benefits and they don't all have a big TV and are just managing to get by. And by and large I have been met with warmth and friendliness, being invited in for a cup of tea etc. More so than in more prosperous areas where there is a tweek of the curtains and general suspicion. But I hate to make generalisations.

Interestingly, I've just read that the Prime Minister gets a £30,000 annual grant for upkeep of his Downing Street living accommodation. Perhaps there should be a £26,000 cap on that as well.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy

As I understand it, a large proportion of the £26,000 plus benefits is made up of Child Benefit, which the person would be getting if they were working anyway. That's why the govt want to include child benefit in the £26,000 calculation or else otherwise it would not be worth implementing the reforms.

If the person is living in London I don't think £26,000 is excessive. I would find it very difficult to raise a family there on that. Again, as I think has been mentioned, the problem is a lack of affordable social housing (even in the most prosperous areas).

I agreed about the apparent injustice of people having wide-screen TVs, etc whilst on benefits. The road to unhappiness comes from comparing our own lives with those of others. There will always be someone better off or appearing to get away with it. At the end of the day the Health Visitor will have a sense of purpose and self-esteem in their job which the person on benefits will never have. And that is more important in life than a wide-screen TV. Glib, I know, but I think it's true.

There are plenty of decent, hard working people, bringing up families in London, earning much less than £35,000. per annum. The amount you need to earn, to take home £26,000.

I know. I lived there, most of my adult life.

Only in your skewed world would those hard working people have to pay taxes, to fund a system, in which those on benefits get more than them.

I suppose your advice to all those people in London, bringing up their families on wages of £35,000. and under, would to be down tools, and start milking the benefits system?

Thankfully this country's majority are still a decent, hard working, and proudly independent people.

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by garinda

There are plenty of decent, hard working people, bringing up families in London, earning much less than £35,000. per annum. The amount you need to earn, to take home £26,000.

I know. I lived there, most of my adult life.

Only in your skewed world would those hard working people have to pay taxes, to fund a system, in which those on benefits get more than them.

I suppose your advice to all those people in London, bringing up their families on wages of £35,000. and under, would to be down tools, and start milking the benefits system?

Thankfully this country's majority are still a decent, hard working, and proudly independent people.

I think you missed the point that -
the landlords are getting it

The level of payments for food and utilities is about the same as workers have - probably less, unless they have many children.