736 replies to this topic

[Barry Fish]

On the face of it this seem entirely reasonable to me...

Can someone point out whats wrong with it ?

You have to earn £35,000 to come out with a Net of £26,000... So to cap benefits at a £35,000 salary seem more than a resonable thing....

[eFestivals]

http://www.guardian....t-cap-62p-a-day

[Barry Fish]

£35,000 in Oldham is a LOT of money... I can ensure you of that...

Still not seeing who it will be an issue for...

[eFestivals]

£35,000 in Oldham is a LOT of money... I can ensure you of that...

Still not seeing who it will be an issue for...

Whether £35,000 is a lot of money is fully dependent on how many people that £35k is supporting.

As that article makes clear, the benefit cap will mostly hit normally-working genuine benefit claimants and hit to far less extent the rarely-working perhaps-not-genuine claimants that this cap is designed to hit.

The idea behind the cap is sound in theory but the application of the cap won't have the desired effect on adults and will simply cause more poverty for already heavily-disadvantaged kids.

[t8yman]

its an absolute minefield, i still stand by the argument that if the gov want to save money/increase revenues, then the vodafones of this world should be pursued - not the poor.

[lost]

the current situation which has gone on for the last decade where huge amounts of public money is funneled into the pockets of private landlords to create huge btl empires can't continue and just feeds the higher rents.. equally I can't see things getting better when the population is increasing at 4 times the rate houses are being built..

saying all that though the cap seems affordable in most parts of the country, the issue seems to be with the families that want to stay in the expensive parts

[abdoujaparov]

£35,000 in Oldham is a LOT of money... I can ensure you of that...

Still not seeing who it will be an issue for...

then presumably you either havent read the article neil linked to or you simply cannot read

[Barry Fish]

So no one can really justify why it shouldn't happen... Other than Vodafone are c**ts...

If you choose to have six children then that's your choice... But you should only expect so much state help... There should be a cut off point...

[abdoujaparov]

So no one can really justify why it shouldn't happen... Other than Vodafone are c**ts...

If you choose to have six children then that's your choice... But you should only expect so much state help... There should be a cut off point...

so, in your infinite wisdom, please explain what the family described in the Guardian article should do. Having had four children and then fallen victim to the economic circumstances (become unemployed etc) and now in a position where they have to subsist on pennies. Clearly they can no longer afford their four children - should they kill them, or simply offer them for adoption?

[kaosmark2]

So no one can really justify why it shouldn't happen... Other than Vodafone are c**ts...

If you choose to have six children then that's your choice... But you should only expect so much state help... There should be a cut off point...

Even ignoring that many families had had children based on their income before getting screwed over by the bankers' recession....

Why should the children live in poverty because of that?

[Barry Fish]

so, in your infinite wisdom, please explain what the family described in the Guardian article should do. Having had four children and then fallen victim to the economic circumstances (become unemployed etc) and now in a position where they have to subsist on pennies. Clearly they can no longer afford their four children - should they kill them, or simply offer them for adoption?

I know REAL people in Oldham EARNiNG less with that amount of children who survive... But you stick to the fictional made up example in the rag...

[Barry Fish]

Even ignoring that many families had had children based on their income before getting screwed over by the bankers' recession....

Why should the children live in poverty because of that?

Poverty? Oh fuck off and book a trip to the townships of south Africa...

[abdoujaparov]

I know REAL people in Oldham EARNiNG less with that amount of children who survive... But you stick to the fictional made up example in the rag...

so what is your answer to the perfectly plausible scenario set out in the Guardian article? Apart from the "dont have kids if you can afford them" nonsense...

[kaosmark2]

Poverty? Oh fuck off and book a trip to the townships of south Africa...

Poverty in the UK is real. Not as serious as in most other countries in the world true, but it's still real.

[Barry Fish]

Poverty in the UK is real. Not as serious as in most other countries in the world true, but it's still real.

With a £35,000 income the poverty argument is bollocks...

Edited by Barry Fish, 23 January 2012 - 12:58 PM.

[Barry Fish]

so what is your answer to the perfectly plausible scenario set out in the Guardian article? Apart from the "dont have kids if you can afford them" nonsense...

I know for a fact you can raise a family of four on £35K income.... The guardian article is bullshit...

[eFestivals]

I know REAL people in Oldham EARNiNG less with that amount of children who survive... But you stick to the fictional made up example in the rag...

... and who survive with the addition of child benefit and who knows what other benefits/tax credits. The chances are that you know only of their earnings, not their total income from all directions.

This whole idea of moving somewhere cheaper is nuts, unless ther govt is going to help finance families to move home. Moving house costs a lot of money, and while the unthinking might say "well, they're unemployed so they can do it themselves" that only works if the moving-from property or moving-to property is prepared to give them that house rent-free for a day or two for the transition.

[eFestivals]

With a £35,000 income the poverty argument is bollocks...

and you just throwing in £35k at every opportunity is bollocks too.

Whether an income of that amount improverishes someone is 100% dependent on what irrevocable expenses have to come out of that money.

And it's funny how only last week you were banging on about how you deserved child benefit despite having an income over twice that amount.

So in your world the already-rich deserve benefits to help them live but the desperate do not. Nice.

[abdoujaparov]

I know for a fact you can raise a family of four on £35K income.... The guardian article is bullshit...

but that isnt the point, and you'd realise that if you'd read the piece properly

the point isnt that you cannot raise a family of four on £26,000...the point is what happensd in circumstances where parents have lost their jobs and will, as a result of this benefits cap, lose their homes. The result of this cap, especially in London, will be in effect to create ghettoes for the poor...

[eFestivals]

I know for a fact you can raise a family of four on £35K income.... The guardian article is bullshit...

It 100% depends on what the irrevocable expenses are.

That £35k is really only £26k.

The rent in the real-world example that article gave is £1738pm, which leaves just £428 for electric, gas & water, a telephone (get a job without a telephone nowadays? Hugely unlikely!), and food for 6 people.

Without deducting money for the utilities, there's £2.34 per-person per day - EVERY DAY - with which to buy all living requirements (food, clothing, hygene products, etc) for each of those 6 people ... it might be possible, but given how much you moan currently in your privileged financial position then you'd deafen us if it was you having to get by on just that.