Can't Survive on £26k a Year Benefit

[z-layrex]

Bollocks is it - it's about Daily Mail readers believing that everyone on benefits is illegal and living in a house with a fvcking swimming pool in the loft.

It's about the "it's not fair" divide and rule Tory policies which pleads to the lowest common denominator. Reducing welfare dependancy? At a time when they have created record numbers of unemployed? Do me a fvcking favour!

It's about fooling cvnts that they pay more to the unemployed thn they did for bank bailouts, the worthless Trident program or the tax major corporations get away with. It's about letting the richest in the country off the hook while slamming the very poorest.

"About fairness"? Fvcking brilliant!

I'm hardly an expert on sociology or politics, but I will say this.

You can pull the 'you're all heartless daily mail reading scum' leftist card all you like. This country is now full of worthless, inbred ****** who haven't and won't do a day of real work in their lives, while the rest of us drag our arses out of bed every damn day at 6am, only to have a third of our pay slips taxed.

I'm not saying cut anything, because I don't want anyone who actually deserves support from the state to lose a penny. I just wish there was a way that pensioners, unemployed people trying to find work, and the genuinely disabled could receive this money, and the Jeremy Kyle types could get nothing if they don't want to work/honestly look for work.

We get so many pensioners dying of respiratory failure every winter, often because they've been living in squalor. It's just not right.

[Guest MattP]

Bollocks is it - it's about Daily Mail readers believing that everyone on benefits is illegal and living in a house with a fvcking swimming pool in the loft.

It's about the "it's not fair" divide and rule Tory policies which pleads to the lowest common denominator. Reducing welfare dependancy? At a time when they have created record numbers of unemployed? Do me a fvcking favour!

It's about fooling cvnts that they pay more to the unemployed thn they did for bank bailouts, the worthless Trident program or the tax major corporations get away with. It's about letting the richest in the country off the hook while slamming the very poorest.

See this is half the problem, it's absolutely impossible to have a serious political debate in Britain nowadays without people jumping to the most ridiculous conclusions possible, the overwhelming majority of people seemed to agree with this proposal and I don't think the Daily Mail's circulation has hit 40million just quite yet.

Yes, the bankers got off with what they did, I was uncomfortable with it but letting the banks go bust was a consequence too risky to even consider. Not point cutting the nose off to spite the face in arguing that against what seem like sensible policies now.

As for trident well.....I thought about it but not a chance in the world we live in at moment, even more so when the Liberals started to back it and we all have seen what the consequences would have been had we listened to them on big decisions in the last ten years.

[leicsmac]

See this is half the problem, it's absolutely impossible to have a serious political debate in Britain nowadays without people jumping to the most ridiculous conclusions possible, the overwhelming majority of people seemed to agree with this proposal and I don't think the Daily Mail's circulation has hit 40million just quite yet.

Yes, the bankers got off with what they did, I was uncomfortable with it but letting the banks go bust was a consequence too risky to even consider. Not point cutting the nose off to spite the face in arguing that against what seem like sensible policies now.

As for trident well.....I thought about it but not a chance in the world we live in at moment, even more so when the Liberals started to back it and we all have seen what the consequences would have been had we listened to them on big decisions in the last ten years.

Fair enough - but it is a truism that 6 of the top 7 of the biggest-circulation newspapers in the UK push a rightwing agenda in their papers, especially ones appealing to the lowest common denominator. Add all of them together and you get an awful lot of people being told exactly the same message by exactly the same group of rich and influential people. The only high-circulation exception is The Mirror, and that's equally ridiculous in the leftwing direction. There seems to be no centre-ground newspaper around, which is a damn shame because they would have at least one buyer if they came up with one.

And what's more...I believe wholeheartedly that many people do believe every scaremongering story fed to them by such print media.

So, yes, you are going to get a majority of people thinking this is a good idea because the media has Told Them So.

For me, this smacks of going after a fly with a bazooka - just sweeping the scythe isn't going to help those genuinely in need. Time needs to be taken to look at each benefit/welfare case on a singular basis, because they're all different! Yes, weed out the Jeremy Kyle fodder, but don't take the genuinely disabled or the ones wanting to work/looking for work with them.

And more pressure needs to be put on big business to take people on and create more jobs, as a matter of urgency. Oddly enough, most unemployed young people in this country do actually want to work and not be feckless layabouts all day - I know from personal experience how much of a downer being unemployed can be, you feel useless - but the opportunities are simply not there. Businesses need to be influenced into offering more jobs in a variety of fields. It's pretty simple really - more people working = less money to spend on benefits = more people spending their wages and helping the economy = more tax money for the Government. Mass employment works - I've been here in Korea for over 18 months now and I've seen that it does, as that's the model they use here (the economy over here is doing quite a bit better than most). Keynesian economics and the people who purport them have a lot to answer for.

[The Doctor]

Fair enough - but it is a truism that 6 of the top 7 of the biggest-circulation newspapers in the UK push a rightwing agenda in their papers, especially ones appealing to the lowest common denominator. Add all of them together and you get an awful lot of people being told exactly the same message by exactly the same group of rich and influential people. The only high-circulation exception is The Mirror, and that's equally ridiculous in the leftwing direction. There seems to be no centre-ground newspaper around, which is a damn shame because they would have at least one buyer if they came up with one.

And what's more...I believe wholeheartedly that many people do believe every scaremongering story fed to them by such print media.

So, yes, you are going to get a majority of people thinking this is a good idea because the media has Told Them So.

For me, this smacks of going after a fly with a bazooka - just sweeping the scythe isn't going to help those genuinely in need. Time needs to be taken to look at each benefit/welfare case on a singular basis, because they're all different! Yes, weed out the Jeremy Kyle fodder, but don't take the genuinely disabled or the ones wanting to work/looking for work with them.

And more pressure needs to be put on big business to take people on and create more jobs, as a matter of urgency. Oddly enough, most unemployed young people in this country do actually want to work and not be feckless layabouts all day - I know from personal experience how much of a downer being unemployed can be, you feel useless - but the opportunities are simply not there. Businesses need to be influenced into offering more jobs in a variety of fields. It's pretty simple really - more people working = less money to spend on benefits = more people spending their wages and helping the economy = more tax money for the Government. Mass employment works - I've been here in Korea for over 18 months now and I've seen that it does, as that's the model they use here (the economy over here is doing quite a bit better than most). Keynesian economics and the people who purport them have a lot to answer for.

The Observer, The Independent?

And I wouldn't say the Mirror is ridiculously left-wing, stack it up against the Guardian and then try making that remark.

As for the last paragraph, I agree. It's easy to be cynical about the way benefits are spent when you're in work, and I can understand why people would be quite judgemental of people on benefits - after-all, it's your money that's helping to fund the scheme and if it's then being wasted, well you can see why people might be unhappy.

However, take a step back and look at this as if you were unemployed - there may be some opportunities floating around, but businesses aren't exactly chomping at the bit to take a risk on less experienced people - which includes a fair bit of the younger generation.

Of course if you keep searching for long enough, you'll find something but getting constantly knocked back from everywhere you apply can get very disheartening and it's very easy to go down the "what's the point" path if you're not careful. One of the biggest problems I think though is that the schooling system doesn't really do much in the way of equipping it's pupils with the tools to find jobs. I remember my "careers education" consisted of a 7-8 hour course in GCSE's which focused on the different types of job sectors etc. more than writing effective CV's/Cover Letters, Interview techniques etc.

[leicsmac]

The Observer, The Independent?

And I wouldn't say the Mirror is ridiculously left-wing, stack it up against the Guardian and then try making that remark.

As for the last paragraph, I agree. It's easy to be cynical about the way benefits are spent when you're in work, and I can understand why people would be quite judgemental of people on benefits - after-all, it's your money that's helping to fund the scheme and if it's then being wasted, well you can see why people might be unhappy.

However, take a step back and look at this as if you were unemployed - there may be some opportunities floating around, but businesses aren't exactly chomping at the bit to take a risk on less experienced people - which includes a fair bit of the younger generation.

Of course if you keep searching for long enough, you'll find something but getting constantly knocked back from everywhere you apply can get very disheartening and it's very easy to go down the "what's the point" path if you're not careful. One of the biggest problems I think though is that the schooling system doesn't really do much in the way of equipping it's pupils with the tools to find jobs. I remember my "careers education" consisted of a 7-8 hour course in GCSE's which focused on the different types of job sectors etc. more than writing effective CV's/Cover Letters, Interview techniques etc.

From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation

You could make a case for 7 of the top 8 in 2011 being right-leaning. Take your point about the Mirror though, compared to the Guardian...it's not that bad. Just wish there was a decent centre-political paper.

But as you can see, both the Guardian and Indy are pretty far down the list.

Totally agree with lack of career education in schools - perhaps another opportunity for big business to change their spots there...liase with schools and send representatives to schools to give students an idea of what employers are looking for. Team that with better classes on CV preparation and interview technique.

I'll say again - the vast majority of young people want to work, earn money, and spend it watching Nuge smash a hat-trick every week.

(Well, maybe that last part needs a bit of work.)

[Daggers]

Unsurprisingly, I disagree.We have an income of less than £26k and we survive. Why should someone who doesn't work be better off than me?

Why is it that you and those like you get all bent out of shape over a handful of people who cost the country millions but shrug your shoulders and look the other way about everything which costs the country trillions?

Imbeciles talking in terms of left and right are the problem because they see everything as party politics, a system which has failed this country to a shameful level.

You want fairness?

Why the fvck should either of us be paying tax when Vodaphone have £6billion written off? Just one single little example which dwarfs any benefit issue you may have and yet I'm betting you either couldn't give a fvck about it or have done fvck all about it.

But a single woman has a bigger house than you and an email is being written to the Mail letters' page before you can say 'causes cancer'...

[Captain...]

Unsurprisingly, I disagree.We have an income of less than £26k and we survive. Why should someone who doesn't work be better off than me?

Do you have children? If you do do you receive child benefit? If you do then do you include that as part of your income? Just curious as to how people judge their income.

What you don't consider is that even though they may be receiving more money per week than you doesn't mean they are better off than you, for example living in London means you need more money to provide the basics than in Leicester housing and general living costs are much higher. Disability benefit is included in this 26K so you don't know how much of that money is spent on dealing with a disability, as an example if you require 10k a year to deal with your disability, then at 26k benefits you are only left with 14k to live on, for a household.

This person is not better off than you, more money does not mean being better off if you have more costs or higher costs.

[Captain...]

Surely the problem there is a charity intended to help poor families shouldnt be giving money to households earning £80,000??

Exactly, that is a progressive benefit reform.

Not got into this thread but I supported the cap, it's absolutely ridiculous to be quite honest any family not giving anythig bacl should be recieving that amount of money, not just because of the way it looks to the rest of the population but mainly for the reason it's completely unsustainable for any progressive society to be "giving that out" in the long term.

Some families can't give anything back, that is a fact, I'm not talking about scroungers and benefit cheats, I am talking about families that have been affected by serious injuries and disabilities or even deaths that had created a family based on the expected earnings, for example a family has 4 kids and living in a good area, but through no fault of their own something happend to the father, they now have no breadwinner and an extra dependant in the form of a seriously injured/disabled parent. The Mother can't work because she has 4 children and the Father to look after.

To sustain that family it requires 30k, to reduce that amount they will need to move to a poorer area or to a smaller house causing massive disruption to the family.

This is a real situation for some people and they should be helped.

The cap will not help these families but will do nothing to deter scroungers who will not be earning anything like 26k in benefits unless they are seriously defrauding the system.

[breadandcheese]

Why is it that you and those like you get all bent out of shape over a handful of people who cost the country millions but shrug your shoulders and look the other way about everything which costs the country trillions?

Imbeciles talking in terms of left and right are the problem because they see everything as party politics, a system which has failed this country to a shameful level.

You want fairness?

Why the fvck should either of us be paying tax when Vodaphone have £6billion written off? Just one single little example which dwarfs any benefit issue you may have and yet I'm betting you either couldn't give a fvck about it or have done fvck all about it.

But a single woman has a bigger house than you and an email is being written to the Mail letters' page before you can say 'causes cancer'...

I can only conclude from your posts that you think the benefits system is perfect as it is and doesn't need radically reforming. In every post you've made, you've ignored the issue and made a few barbed comments. The phrase play the ball not the man, comes to mind. If you support the current benefits system, then you support the disincentive to work that it can create, you support universal benefits (winter fuel allowance and child benefit) to the wealthiest in society, you support trapping the poorest into welfare dependency.

You mention Vodafone. I don't know many who support the deal that HMRC made with Vodafone. Unfortunately, it wasn't this government or even the last government who made that deal. It was HMRC, who came to a legally binding agreement with Vodafone, such that the government cannot claw the money back. You could ask Mr Hartnett, the head of HMRC why he made the deal that he did, however, he will hide behind data protections act, as he has done to parliamentary committees. I hope the government is looking at HMRC's role in this very closely and addressing it. However, this does not address the problems of the welfare system and having more money from other sources to keep the same system going does not solve the problem of the welfare system in its current state.

[Captain...]

See this is half the problem, it's absolutely impossible to have a serious political debate in Britain nowadays without people jumping to the most ridiculous conclusions possible, the overwhelming majority of people seemed to agree with this proposal and I don't think the Daily Mail's circulation has hit 40million just quite yet.

Do they? because, it failed in the house of lords and only just passed in the commons, most people agree with benefit reform and tackling the amount of tax payers money is being spent on benefits, but this proposal is not that, and it is currently tying up more time being debated and not addressing real issues.

26k is a lot of money, if people should not be receiving this much money then we need to look at why they are eligible for this amount of benefit and address the root of the problem. If they have been assessed and it has been determined that to have a basic standard of living they require 50k (for whatever reason, kids, disability, etc) then giving them only 26k means we are not providing them with the basic standard of living. Which is wrong.

Yes, the bankers got off with what they did, I was uncomfortable with it but letting the banks go bust was a consequence too risky to even consider. Not point cutting the nose off to spite the face in arguing that against what seem like sensible policies now.

It is not about letting the banks go under it was the fact that by propping up the banks we have provided the money to pay the bankers astronomical bonuses even though they massively fvcked up.

As for trident well.....I thought about it but not a chance in the world we live in at moment, even more so when the Liberals started to back it and we all have seen what the consequences would have been had we listened to them on big decisions in the last ten years.

Why not? What nuclear threat is there in this world? We do not need nuclear weapons, and by having them we are a target, but then if you are basing your decision on it being a Liberal Policy then you are clearly incapable of making an informed decision so I won't bother.

[breadandcheese]

Fair enough - but it is a truism that 6 of the top 7 of the biggest-circulation newspapers in the UK push a rightwing agenda in their papers, especially ones appealing to the lowest common denominator. Add all of them together and you get an awful lot of people being told exactly the same message by exactly the same group of rich and influential people. The only high-circulation exception is The Mirror, and that's equally ridiculous in the leftwing direction. There seems to be no centre-ground newspaper around, which is a damn shame because they would have at least one buyer if they came up with one.

Are there more right-leaning newspapers because the population is more right-leaning? Or is the causation the other way around?

In an industry where newspapers need to sell copies, I'd argue that newspapers tailor towards their readers.

Edit: Apologies, it's a question off at a tangent but it's an interesting question

[Captain...]

Are there more right-leaning newspapers because the population is more right-leaning? Or is the causation the other way around?

In an industry where newspapers need to sell copies, I'd argue that newspapers tailor towards their readers.

Edit: Apologies, it's a question off at a tangent but it's an interesting question

To be honest I don't really class the Sun as a) Being a newspaper, or B) Having a readership that take much interest in politics, in my lifetime the Sun has switched it's political allegiances twice and it has not affected their readership, so I think in that sense it is the Newspaper leading public opinion where there isn't one. I would also say that mainstream TV news is more left leaning with the BBC and Channel 4.

[leicsmac]

Are there more right-leaning newspapers because the population is more right-leaning? Or is the causation the other way around?

In an industry where newspapers need to sell copies, I'd argue that newspapers tailor towards their readers.

Edit: Apologies, it's a question off at a tangent but it's an interesting question

It's an interesting one. I think it's a bit of both - people are both easily influenced by media but also like stories that reinforce their established stereotypes about society.

I also think, however, that newspapers have far more money and therefore political influence behind them than they have in the past. This means they can be used by the Powers That Be to push an agenda of any kind chosen, as the editors are no longer independent of such powers - indeed, they are among them now.

CS - don't doubt the political influence of the Sun. Remember the Headline in 1992 - "It was the Sun wot won it" - and it was, too. A variety of media tells the populace to vote for a particular party or person - they'll vote for them. Media is a far more powerful political tool than many think.

And the 'dumb vote' - to use a colloquialism - is a powerful weapon, as it can be influence to vote a particular way very easily.

[Guest MattP]

Do they? because, it failed in the house of lords and only just passed in the commons, most people agree with benefit reform and tackling the amount of tax payers money is being spent on benefits, but this proposal is not that, and it is currently tying up more time being debated and not addressing real issues.

26k is a lot of money, if people should not be receiving this much money then we need to look at why they are eligible for this amount of benefit and address the root of the problem. If they have been assessed and it has been determined that to have a basic standard of living they require 50k (for whatever reason, kids, disability, etc) then giving them only 26k means we are not providing them with the basic standard of living. Which is wrong.

It is not about letting the banks go under it was the fact that by propping up the banks we have provided the money to pay the bankers astronomical bonuses even though they massively fvcked up.

Why not? What nuclear threat is there in this world? We do not need nuclear weapons, and by having them we are a target, but then if you are basing your decision on it being a Liberal Policy then you are clearly incapable of making an informed decision so I won't bother.

I don't know whats more worrying, the Mirror selling over a million or the Star selling 750,000, didnt know their were that many bitter minors and perverts out there, can't knock the Daily Mails tactics, to gain an increase in circulation when you website is free in this day and age is absolutely staggering.

I have absolutely no idea why any family would recieve over 26k benefit, the only thing i come close to is that they must have numerous kids and if you are in no position to support your family I have no idea what you are doing shovelling out kids like that, maybe steralisation would be a better option than a cap on benefits? It's not nice to say it but the guy who said we just seem to be breeding more and more totally useless people is absolutely right. It's a shame, the basics of evolution should mean the strongest survive, we actually seem to encourage and pay for the weakest to breed even more.

I'vbe not seen a poll that doesnt agree with it, I just googled the question and the top one that came up was this. Maybe they are all Daily Mail readers

View Poll Results: Benefits capped at £26k - acceptable?

Voters 305. You may not vote on this poll

• 
  Yay
  280 91.80%
  
• 
  Nay
  17 5.57%
  
• 
  Ambivalent
  8 2.62%
  

Threat from who? Would you consider North Korea a stable country, Iran? The Tories and Labour both agreed it would be far too risky to remove out nuclear program, when those two both agree on something it's probably time to listen, take on point on the fact you should judge each one on its merit but when you see the recent history of big decisions (Eurozone ) and what side of the fence that Liberal Democrats were on you should see why.

[Captain...]

I don't know whats more worrying, the Mirror selling over a million or the Star selling 750,000, didnt know their were that many bitter minors and perverts out there, can't knock the Daily Mails tactics, to gain an increase in circulation when you website is free in this day and age is absolutely staggering.

I have absolutely no idea why any family would recieve over 26k benefit, the only thing i come close to is that they must have numerous kids and if you are in no position to support your family I have no idea what you are doing shovelling out kids like that, maybe steralisation would be a better option than a cap on benefits? It's not nice to say it but the guy who said we just seem to be breeding more and more totally useless people is absolutely right. It's a shame, the basics of evolution should mean the strongest survive, we actually seem to encourage and pay for the weakest to breed even more.

I'vbe not seen a poll that doesnt agree with it, I just googled the question and the top one that came up was this. Maybe they are all Daily Mail readers

View Poll Results: Benefits capped at £26k - acceptable?

Voters 305. You may not vote on this poll

• Yay
  280 91.80%
  
• Nay
  17 5.57%
  
• Ambivalent
  8 2.62%
  

Threat from who? Would you consider North Korea a stable country, Iran? The Tories and Labour both agreed it would be far too risky to remove out nuclear program, when those two both agree on something it's probably time to listen, take on point on the fact you should judge each one on its merit but when you see the recent history of big decisions (Eurozone ) and what side of the fence that Liberal Democrats were on you should see why.

305 and is not a great sample, but I'm sure a lot of people who read the headlines can't see an issue with it.

I also don't know who would qualify for 26k in benefits, but to attribute that to kids is wrong, each extra kid you have is £11 a week, 26k is £500 a week, to get close to that amount you need to have about 40 kids.

My point is the Benefits assessors have deemed that some households are entitled to over 26k in benefits, if that is wrong and they are not entitled to that much then we need to look at why, and if it is right, then by capping the amount you are taking away money that is rightfully theirs and required to maintain a basic standard of living.

Lets look at this scenario if it is passed, a family has housing benefits, jobseekers, disability benefit and 3 children which comes out at 26K exactly, you have no problem with that as it is at the cap. Then they have another child (I know they should be sewn up after 3 but we live in a free world unfortunately) they have an extra mouth to feed, but no extra money.

Or the rent goes up, or VAT goes up again, or one of their children gets sick and needs extra care and looking after, their circumstances change but their benefits don't.

Do you not see what is wrong with that?

Forget the fact you think 26k is too high, that is irrelevant, it is the idea of a cap that I disagree with, the fact that some families are entitled to over 26k in benefits is arguably wrong, but this is not what the government are looking at.

Edit: Lets save trident for another thread.

[Jon the Hat]

Why the fvck should either of us be paying tax when Vodaphone have £6billion written off? Just one single little example which dwarfs any benefit issue you may have and yet I'm betting you either couldn't give a fvck about it or have done fvck all about it.

But a single woman has a bigger house than you and an email is being written to the Mail letters' page before you can say 'causes cancer'...

I do get mildly irritated when people go on about companies not paying any tax. Vodafone have paid the tax that was due, and their ownership of foreign companies and the earnings from those will reap dividends to millions of shareholders and pensioners, all of whom pay plenty of tax. You cannot change the rules for a specific company becuase you spot they made some profit you couldn't tax. If you do, then watch the jobs and the profits go to other more competitive economies.

[leicsmac]

I do get mildly irritated when people go on about companies not paying any tax. Vodafone have paid the tax that was due, and their ownership of foreign companies and the earnings from those will reap dividends to millions of shareholders and pensioners, all of whom pay plenty of tax. You cannot change the rules for a specific company becuase you spot they made some profit you couldn't tax. If you do, then watch the jobs and the profits go to other more competitive economies.

That's the core of the problem. "Let us do what we want to whoever we want or we'll take our jobs and money elsewhere". That's why certain big companies - and indeed moneyed individuals - can get away with murder...they've got the government by the balls financially and they know it.

Unfortunately there's no easy solution to such a problem - not unless a global tax rate is established (which is ridiculous).

[Jace]

I do get mildly irritated when people go on about companies not paying any tax. Vodafone have paid the tax that was due, and their ownership of foreign companies and the earnings from those will reap dividends to millions of shareholders and pensioners, all of whom pay plenty of tax. You cannot change the rules for a specific company becuase you spot they made some profit you couldn't tax. If you do, then watch the jobs and the profits go to other more competitive economies.

Yayyy intelligent life does exist in Foxestalk!

[Saxondale]

I think it's unbelievably arrogant of left-leaning thinkers to assume that anybody who leans to the right is completely influenced by any elements of the mainstream media.

Reading The Guardian is not a pre-requisite to being able to think for yourself.

[Guest MattP]

Reading The Guardian is not a pre-requisite to being able to think for yourself.

Do people still read the Guardian?

It's mainly Johann Hari's plagarism anyway

[Guest MattP]

305 and is not a great sample, but I'm sure a lot of people who read the headlines can't see an issue with it.

I also don't know who would qualify for 26k in benefits, but to attribute that to kids is wrong, each extra kid you have is £11 a week, 26k is £500 a week, to get close to that amount you need to have about 40 kids.

My point is the Benefits assessors have deemed that some households are entitled to over 26k in benefits, if that is wrong and they are not entitled to that much then we need to look at why, and if it is right, then by capping the amount you are taking away money that is rightfully theirs and required to maintain a basic standard of living.

Lets look at this scenario if it is passed, a family has housing benefits, jobseekers, disability benefit and 3 children which comes out at 26K exactly, you have no problem with that as it is at the cap. Then they have another child (I know they should be sewn up after 3 but we live in a free world unfortunately) they have an extra mouth to feed, but no extra money.

Or the rent goes up, or VAT goes up again, or one of their children gets sick and needs extra care and looking after, their circumstances change but their benefits don't.

Do you not see what is wrong with that?

Forget the fact you think 26k is too high, that is irrelevant, it is the idea of a cap that I disagree with, the fact that some families are entitled to over 26k in benefits is arguably wrong, but this is not what the government are looking at.

Edit: Lets save trident for another thread.

No worries.

I agree we need to go further than this and look at individual cases but I think the point still stands its fairly ridiculous for any one household to be claiming anything like the amounts that are talked about here, thats why this cap whilst not perfect would have gone some way to sorting out some of the most obscene cases we read about.

We simply can't afford anymore to have situations where households rely on so much money from the state.

[danny.]

Lets look at this scenario if it is passed, a family has housing benefits, jobseekers, disability benefit and 3 children which comes out at 26K exactly, you have no problem with that as it is at the cap. Then they have another child (I know they should be sewn up after 3 but we live in a free world unfortunately) they have an extra mouth to feed, but no extra money.

Or the rent goes up, or VAT goes up again, or one of their children gets sick and needs extra care and looking after, their circumstances change but their benefits don't.

Do you not see what is wrong with that?

If it's a free world for people to have loads of kids, it should also be free for them to deal with the consequences, both actual and potential, without expecting someone else to be responsible for them.

[Saxondale]

If it's a free world for people to have loads of kids, it should also be free for them to deal with the consequences, both actual and potential, without expecting someone else to be responsible for them.

This is exactly the point. People who just want to be left alone to get on with their lives shouldn't be unduly responsible for other people's actions.

There are very few people, however right-wing they are, who don't believe in a welfare state - but the point is it should be there as a safety net and to protect the genuinely vulnerable; certainly not for people to make a career out of it at the expense of honest, hard-working people.

[leicsmac]

I think it's unbelievably arrogant of left-leaning thinkers to assume that anybody who leans to the right is completely influenced by any elements of the mainstream media.

Reading The Guardian is not a pre-requisite to being able to think for yourself.

I think both right and left-leaning thinkers are influenced by the mainstream media. That's the point I'm trying to make. In the print media, there are more right-wing sources in circulation, in TV media, more left-wing.

This isn't about either political wing. This is about the obvious and onerous influence a powerful media has on the general populace, who then (for the most part) believe everything fed to them.

[Saxondale]

I think both right and left-leaning thinkers are influenced by the mainstream media. That's the point I'm trying to make. In the print media, there are more right-wing sources in circulation, in TV media, more left-wing.

This isn't about either political wing. This is about the obvious and onerous influence a powerful media has on the general populace, who then (for the most part) believe everything fed to them.

True enough. I would argue, however, that the influence of political agenda (usually from proprietorship) in the mainstream media is the least relevant it has ever been. With the mass of opinion and information widely available on the internet, it's never long before the full story becomes clear about anything.

I think that, editorially, most elements of the media are most concerned with breaking the most sensational stories than by pushing a political agenda.

To take a simplistic example, most media outlets were equally happy to disgrace both Con and Lab MPs in the expenses scandal.