£26,000 Benefit Cap

[eFestivals]

I am pretty confident I can house, feed and educate them.

No different to parents of a large family whose circumstances later change for the worse.

And if I ever need it the burden on the state will be low.

That's your assumption and nowt more. It is not a fact. Your next kid might be more mentally unstable than you clearly are and be a huge burden on the state. You can't know. Shit happens, including to those people with the best intentions.

I'm sure even Dave Moron thought the same as you about his kids before he had those kids. Then he has a disabled kid and finds he can't - or won't - support its needs thru his own extremely fat pockets, and puts a massive burden on the state instead. Suddenly he loves the NHS, but then his kid dies and so he's back to thinking it can be fucked over and it's only the 'irresponsible' who'll suffer.

I will challenge anyone having more than four kids today, ten years ago or in ten years in the future about the safety of doing so unless you have A LOT of money in the bank.

nothing of that is relevant to someone who had their kids 15 years ago. Or had multiple births, or a million other things.

How about coming up with a solution for today, and not a fantasy?

You don't even have the solution for your own responsibilities.

[eFestivals]

You are just shouting "rable rable" here... You aren't doing anything really...

To be frank I am doing the same with the same ultimate outcome which is nothing...

I'm trying to open your eyes to the immensely selfish and stupid view you have on this benefit cap.

You want to believe your view is reasonable - you've said it is often enough - and yet you won't take into account anything about the needs of a family aside from your own.

[eFestivals]

Do you honestly think that regardless of the number of kids someone has the state should just step up to the mark and provide housing for that number of kids. Its unsustainable...

So if you want eight kids then your going to have to put up with a three bedroom house and get creative with the space.

do you honestly think that anyone is having a large number of kids just because the state will pay them more in benefits if they do?

Until such time as there's laws to say that there's a limit on kids (for the employed as well as the unemployed!!) the state should be taking responsibility for its citizens in need, rather than saying there's a cut off point.

It's not like the massive tax avoidance that the rich do thru their pension plans and the like has a cut-off.

[Ed209]

Do you honestly think that regardless of the number of kids someone has the state should just step up to the mark and provide housing for that number of kids. Its unsustainable...

So if you want eight kids then your going to have to put up with a three bedroom house and get creative with the space.

[Ed209]

How so ?

Does it not worry you that the country is borrowing money on top of money to fund the current level of benefits ? and the time bomb that is creating ? Which will result in many more problems for future generations ?

I mean its all stupid question isn't it... We have x amount of money to spend... and currently we are spending more than we are bringing in... Yeah people are going to suffer to some extent..

I think I am along way from accepting children's health is at risk here. Tesco value porridge oaks for breakfast, free school meal and a simple prepared evening meal is not a bank breaker.

[lost]

Benefits is small fry in the grand scheme of things.

[eFestivals]

Benefits is small fry in the grand scheme of things. Cutting them is just a way the tories keep the right wingers like yourself happy. Its barely making a dent on this country's debt problems.

This benefit cut will save about half the amount that Eric Pickles is spending on that essential that's being demanded by voters everywhere, the restoration of weekly bin collections.

Which gets to show that the necessity to have an arbitrary cap on benefits because of the debt crisis is just complete bollocks. But Barry loves it, laps it up like a starving cat with cream.

Then there's the fact that the same Eric Pickles has told Dave Moron, Gideon Osborne and IDS that this arbitrary cap on benefits will not save a penny but will in fact cost the state extra money - because the cost of dealing with the problems created by the cap will far outweigh the small saving.

Which gets to show that the necessity to have an arbitrary cap on benefits because of the debt crisis is just complete bollocks. But Barry loves it, laps it up like a starving cat with cream.

I keep pointing things like this out to him, but it seems he's had his ears permanently stuffed with Dave's bullshit propaganda, cos that's the sort of right-minded socially progressive type of person he is.

[abdoujaparov]

Lets take this as cast iron...

There are around 11,000,000 children in the united kingdom... 0-18...

So its a policy that at worse affects 1.2% (if my numbers are right) of the children in this country... IF they aren't already in the poverty bracket. IF their parents took no different action. If the government don't generate more jobs.

Now how many of the parents in this bracket can't do anything to find a job, move house, get training etc etc... and it IS a sign to future generations to give more thought to how many children you have.

NO ONE wants to push kids in to poverty but the country can only afford so much state aid. As you the statement above says kids are already in poverty with the current benefits which proves this.

[kaosmark2]

So short term, we let poor children starve and die because of their family's lack of planning.

Long-term, 2-child policy? Follow China's lead?

You're talking as if having children is a luxury people choose, without any consideration for the effect on the children. It's a disgraceful attitude. Campaigning for a maximum child benefit to come in IN 17 YEARS TIME would be one thing, but there is no justification for letting children starve due to financially penalising families on ideological grounds - which is what this is.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I think it is time that we say answers as to where families are going to go if evicted. Given that the reduction for housing benefit is been reduced to the 30th percentile the options available will be greatly reduced. The available stock of housing in that range is just not there. I know as my rent is insanely low in comparison to others in my area (even social housing). You just dont see houses like mine getting advertised as people keep hold of them. Landlords themselves are less likely to take on tenants on housing benefit as they will, again, be limited on rent increases. Having 5 children I know how difficult it was finding suitable housing in the past. Before anyone says about affording kids we based our finances on the level of income support we would receive if needs be. That was a safety net if needs be. We found housing that would be covered by benefits if things went tits up. That safety net is now removed. Thankfully I am a pesimist and take that into account but many dont.

[abdoujaparov]

Yeah so we say to people... Have ten kids and if you can't find any work don't worry there is a nice four , five , eight bedroom house down the road... Want Sky tv ? not a problem!

The reality is you just can't fund that.. and it creates no reason for anyone to work...

You was saying how we all going down the pan in another thread... this is just the start of it... We haven't got the money for it...

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Why are people so obsessed with Sky? It provides cheap and ready entertainment for a family. Our family went on walks (never owned a car), played in the park etc. Our first family holiday was not until 2003 at Glastonbury. I bought 2 tickets as a present (face value in May) for my ex's graduation to take my eldest daughter for her 11th birthday. We found all the kids would get in free so we got a lift share and the rest is history. However I digress. We had Sky and even on low incomes have had it. Have you seen how expensive videos or the cinema are? Fuck the argument on lazy parenting as well. My kids played out as did we but times have changed. If people wish to spend their dole money on Sky I have no issue with it.

[kaosmark2]

Why are people so obsessed with Sky? It provides cheap and ready entertainment for a family. Our family went on walks (never owned a car), played in the park etc. Our first family holiday was not until 2003 at Glastonbury. I bought 2 tickets as a present (face value in May) for my ex's graduation to take my eldest daughter for her 11th birthday. We found all the kids would get in free so we got a lift share and the rest is history. However I digress. We had Sky and even on low incomes have had it. Have you seen how expensive videos or the cinema are? Fuck the argument on lazy parenting as well. My kids played out as did we but times have changed. If people wish to spend their dole money on Sky I have no issue with it.

[lost]

Why are people so obsessed with Sky? It provides cheap and ready entertainment for a family. Our family went on walks (never owned a car), played in the park etc. Our first family holiday was not until 2003 at Glastonbury. I bought 2 tickets as a present (face value in May) for my ex's graduation to take my eldest daughter for her 11th birthday. We found all the kids would get in free so we got a lift share and the rest is history. However I digress. We had Sky and even on low incomes have had it. Have you seen how expensive videos or the cinema are? Fuck the argument on lazy parenting as well. My kids played out as did we but times have changed. If people wish to spend their dole money on Sky I have no issue with it.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

An unlimited Lovefilm subscription, 3 discs and infinite streaming costs £13.27/month, a lot cheaper than Sky. Combine that with freesat, particularly if you have a recording box and you've got more to watch than you need.

[kaosmark2]

I have that as well. But some would resent people on dole having Lovefilm. Very badly I was trying to say that Income Support gives a basic standard of living. Some get sky, but that will be at the sacrifice of, say, a family visit to Alton Towers. The dole haters seem to aim at satellite dishes. When I was training to be a nurse in 1986 we came off placement and a fellow student said "I visited one house, with a family of 4, and they had no carpet in the hallway, but they had a television!!!".

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I get the idea that some form of entertainment should be considered a requirement for an existence, and the idea of 'how little do you get to', but frankly, a 60p pack of cards and a £3 book with rules for 50 different games can be enough. Times spent playing games with my family are certainly more memorable than a load of the shit TV there is. And Sky certainly isn't cheap (at least in financial terms).

[Rufus Gwertigan]

it's odd (and sad) how people think they have a right to say what other people should do with their money....

[abdoujaparov]

If you are getting hand outs then I think the public have a right to concern themselves what the money is being used for. It's not their money, it's the states money...

[kaosmark2]

Sure... I presume the hint is in the name.... For the benefit of the child... Every penny has been spent on the child...

[abdoujaparov]

Sure... I presume the hint is in the name.... For the benefit of the child... Every penny has been spent on the child...

[abdoujaparov]

Yup... I bought a car seat with the CB money... That ok?

[kaosmark2]

Not really... She mostly watches cbeebies...

Ther are cheaper ways of doing the same thing...

[abdoujaparov]

I don't think most people see it that way... I think most people Kant to see state money to go to essentials and not luxury items...

[kaosmark2]

You do understand there isn't a pot with your name on it don't you? It doesn't work that way...