Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 1:31 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

Daily Mail Editorial alert!

How many of the kids did she have befeore having to go on benefits?

Not sure...the one with 6 kids is from Romania, apparently.

How much of a "cut" are you taking if "everyone" has to?

If you really want to make this personal:

A substantial one. I work for HMG and our pension scheme has just been entirely rewritten. I am probably going to have to work for 3 years longer than I had planned, and I will receive far less when I eventually do retire.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 1:34 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

Take the cut like everyone else is going to have to...

"Everyone" isn't.

The Video Ref wrote:

People are going to have to start living responsibly, within their own means, and not just using the state as a cash-cow.

Will that mean the state is going to stop subsidising big business, then?

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 1:34 pm  

Hull White Star wrote: You need to stop reading the DM and start reading this:- http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths That's great. Left-leaning newspaper produces article based on study by left-leaning think-tank.

Hull White Star wrote: You need to stop reading the DM and start reading this:- http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths That's great. Left-leaning newspaper produces article based on study by left-leaning think-tank.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 1:58 pm  

Hull White Star wrote: You need to stop reading the DM and start reading this:- http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths Link doesn't work? To turn the argument around, why should the State pay more in welfare than people who go out and earn it (on average)? I must admit to being particularly unsympathetic to someone who claims they can't survive on £500 per week of welfare, given that if I was out of work as a single male I'd be entitled to £75pw (I just worked it out on the Gov UK website) of welfare.

Hull White Star wrote: You need to stop reading the DM and start reading this:- http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths Link doesn't work? To turn the argument around, why should the State pay more in welfare than people who go out and earn it (on average)? I must admit to being particularly unsympathetic to someone who claims they can't survive on £500 per week of welfare, given that if I was out of work as a single male I'd be entitled to £75pw (I just worked it out on the Gov UK website) of welfare.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 2:09 pm  

VR & Ajw should read this:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24829866 and be ashamed of whats happening. Sanctioned for doing a college course to further your career prospects and therefore not being available to look for work? The new regulations - which mean a minimum four-weeks without JSA for anyone deemed to have breached them - are designed to help those without a job, according to the DWP. "This is absolutely not about saving money or punishing people," the spokesman says. "Our role is to help people into work." So how is witholding money which means these people have absolutely no income to eat let alone go out and look for jobs supposed to "help people into work"? And how is it not punishing people? According to the dictionary a punishment is a penalty imposed for wrong doing. If taking away the benefit (penalty imposed) for wrong doing (not abiding by their so called rules) isn't a punishment then I don't know what is. More lies from IDS' mouthpiece that is the DWP.

VR & Ajw should read this:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24829866 and be ashamed of whats happening. Sanctioned for doing a college course to further your career prospects and therefore not being available to look for work? The new regulations - which mean a minimum four-weeks without JSA for anyone deemed to have breached them - are designed to help those without a job, according to the DWP. "This is absolutely not about saving money or punishing people," the spokesman says. "Our role is to help people into work." So how is witholding money which means these people have absolutely no income to eat let alone go out and look for jobs supposed to "help people into work"? And how is it not punishing people? According to the dictionary a punishment is a penalty imposed for wrong doing. If taking away the benefit (penalty imposed) for wrong doing (not abiding by their so called rules) isn't a punishment then I don't know what is. More lies from IDS' mouthpiece that is the DWP.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 2:13 pm  

Diavolo Rosso wrote:

Link doesn't work?

To turn the argument around, why should the State pay more in welfare than people who go out and earn it (on average)?

I must admit to being particularly unsympathetic to someone who claims they can't survive on £500 per week of welfare, given that if I was out of work as a single male I'd be entitled to £75pw (I just worked it out on the Gov UK website) of welfare.

Has it not occured to you (or anyone for that matter) that these people don't get £500 in crisp £50 notes every week? Most of that is made up of housing benefit which goes to the landlords.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 2:16 pm  

Hull White Star wrote: VR & Ajw should read this:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24829866 and be ashamed of whats happening. Sanctioned for doing a college course to further your career prospects and therefore not being available to look for work? The new regulations - which mean a minimum four-weeks without JSA for anyone deemed to have breached them - are designed to help those without a job, according to the DWP. "This is absolutely not about saving money or punishing people," the spokesman says. "Our role is to help people into work." So how is witholding money which means these people have absolutely no income to eat let alone go out and look for jobs supposed to "help people into work"? And how is it not punishing people? According to the dictionary a punishment is a penalty imposed for wrong doing. If taking away the benefit (penalty imposed) for wrong doing (not abiding by their so called rules) isn't a punishment then I don't know what is. More lies from IDS' mouthpiece that is the DWP. Indeed. The jobcentre in York has recently started making the long term unemployed go in to the jobcentre every day. Regardless of any part time work they may have. So they've either lost the part time jobs they had or have stopped claiming JSA. I don't think anyone has a problem with there being a punishment aspect for people who don't do enough to get a job, but it's how it's being applied that's the problem. A 4 week punishment is too much for a minimum sanction and the abolition of rapid-reclaim is pure madness amongst several other barmy aspects of JSA and JobCentres.

Hull White Star wrote: VR & Ajw should read this:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24829866 and be ashamed of whats happening. Sanctioned for doing a college course to further your career prospects and therefore not being available to look for work? The new regulations - which mean a minimum four-weeks without JSA for anyone deemed to have breached them - are designed to help those without a job, according to the DWP. "This is absolutely not about saving money or punishing people," the spokesman says. "Our role is to help people into work." So how is witholding money which means these people have absolutely no income to eat let alone go out and look for jobs supposed to "help people into work"? And how is it not punishing people? According to the dictionary a punishment is a penalty imposed for wrong doing. If taking away the benefit (penalty imposed) for wrong doing (not abiding by their so called rules) isn't a punishment then I don't know what is. More lies from IDS' mouthpiece that is the DWP. Indeed. The jobcentre in York has recently started making the long term unemployed go in to the jobcentre every day. Regardless of any part time work they may have. So they've either lost the part time jobs they had or have stopped claiming JSA. I don't think anyone has a problem with there being a punishment aspect for people who don't do enough to get a job, but it's how it's being applied that's the problem. A 4 week punishment is too much for a minimum sanction and the abolition of rapid-reclaim is pure madness amongst several other barmy aspects of JSA and JobCentres.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 2:41 pm  

Hull White Star wrote:

Has it not occured to you (or anyone for that matter) that these people don't get £500 in crisp £50 notes every week? Most of that is made up of housing benefit which goes to the landlords.

Has it not occured to you that most people who work hand over a considerable number of £50 notes to their landlord or mortgage provider each month?

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 2:48 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

Has it not occured to you that most people who work hand over a considerable number of £50 notes to their landlord or mortgage provider each month?

And 80-odd per cent of those in receipt of housing benefit are in work. But hey! Let's deal with the housing shortage by the state stumping up cash to give to private companies/individuals as grants to buy houses of up to £600k, and looking almost like a plan to create a specific plan to cause another bubble and another crash, and continue to consider actually creating affordable housing as being 'bad'.

But hey – you appear to be convinced that we really are 'all in it together'.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Wed Nov 06, 2013 3:14 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

Take the cut like everyone else is going to have to.

People are going to have to start living responsibly, within their own means, and not just using the state as a cash-cow.

You would have to earn somewhere in the region of £35K before you can put £500 p/w in your pocket as net income. One of these mothers has 6 (yes, 6) kids. Benefits should be there to support the most needy, not to encourage people to turn themselves into baby-making factories.

Except of course those at the top who have had a tax cut to complement there rising pay.

In what way do you expect them to ‘take the cut’? you have to pay for your rent, you have to pay for food and clothing the kids. What exactly are you expecting them to ‘cut’?

Why did you need to emphasise that someone had six kids? Am I supposed to be shocked by that? Am I supposed to think kids this person isn’t worthy of so many kids? What?

Increasingly, you will find they don't. Legal Aid has pretty much gone for everything except crime, dental negligence (bizarrely) and matters of public policy (like this one).

pretty sad indictment of the selfish nature of this government really.