£26,000 Benefit Cap

[feral chile]

I think you will have to show me some examples.

[kaosmark2]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17255753

It's popular apparently.

What's the betting the 77% that support it are amongst the 85% who won't be hit?

[Rufus Gwertigan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17255753

It's popular apparently.

What's the betting the 77% that support it are amongst the 85% who won't be hit?

[lost]

^{anyone just over the threshold should simply over pay their pension bringing them back under and will get their benefits back.}

Edited March 5, 2012 by lost

[feral chile]

That is in favour of a cut for child benefit for higher rate tax earners.

However I would still say it is relevant. I have a friend that has 8 kids. He is a professor so I guess a higher rate tax payer. His wife looks after the kids. Now if loses all child benefit even though if based his finances on receiving a Universal Benefit. It is academic as most of his kids are grown up but it would be around 5k a year if would have lost.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

^{anyone just over the threshold should simply over pay their pension bringing them back under and will get their benefits back.}

[lost]

But is that money locked away (dependant on scheme) so their income is still reduced. (Off topic) I used to have clients at the CSA who would say silly amounts into a pension they could not access for years just to avoid paying maintenance.Became a battle of wills but they are closing that loophole

Edited March 5, 2012 by lost

[feral chile]

If you think the "rich" who will lose these benefits are the ones screwing everyone then you are up on the bonkers tree along with Conrad Neil.

The people screwing us all are the ones earning five / six / a hundred times the level where this cap kicks in...

[feral chile]

They shouldn't implement it as its been currently proposed...

The idea a family earning £80k keeps it but a family earning £45k loses it is just bonkers.

They need to do it off a fixed threshold (say £50k ?) or administrate it through tax credits and scrap it all together.

[eFestivals]

If you think the "rich" who will lose these benefits are the ones screwing everyone then you are up on the bonkers tree along with Conrad Neil.

Yep, I'm clearly bonkers, for continually thinking that those earning a high amount of money should pay their part cos we're all in this together .... yet the cuts for the poor hit before the cuts for the rich, while the rich will just fiddle their tax so they don't cough up as you've indicated that you plan to do.

But let's penalise those poor kids eh? It's just disgusting that someone has had a large family then become unemployed, the leeching scum ... leeching to just £167M, while the scum like you will keep on leeching to £2.5Bn and say it's the govt's fault for not writing the rules so you actually have to pay up, and you deserve the govt to buy you your 3rd holiday at the expense of poor kids.

Yeah, it's the poor that have no morals and who are screwing this country..

[eFestivals]

it ain't me that wants to pull up the drawbridge believing that all I have is mine, rightfully mine, and just mine Barry. I think you missed the point of that.

[eFestivals]

I ain't pulling up any draw bridge... Quite the opposite... I believe about leaving drawbridges firmly down...

You are so simple minded you can't see that. I kind of see the reasonableness in a benefit cap and you take that as me wanting to pull up all drawbridges Its impossible to have a reasonable conversation with someone so dogmatic.

Open migration and the open competition for jobs and resources that would come with that? That's the capitalism you say you admire.

Fair benefits based on need and not unfair benefits based on the greed of the rich?

Saying that we need to cut govt expenditure or we'll end up like Greece, but you being against any cut which impacts on you?

Etc, etc, etc.

The unreasonable are those who cannot join up the dots of what they say into something coherent and consistent, and instead fall back on dogma contrary to the facts, and personal greed.

[eFestivals]

I don't want open migration and open competition for jobs.

so you wish to pull up the drawbridge and not allow others the chance to fairly compete to be able get all the things that you like to believe you got on a fair basis via just your own work.

I have accepted that child benefit is going to go. How many times do I have to say that ?

'accept' yes ... but that's merely accepting the inevitable.

Which is a completely different thing to your statements that it's 'wrong', your (premature, as it turned out) celebrations when you thought yu were going to keep it, and your more recent statement about how you'll simply change how you work things for tax so you don't lose it anyway.

After all, if you lost your 3rd holiday every year that would be just so unfair.

But it's fair for a large family on benefits with a need for those benefits to lose their house and perhaps need to put one or more of their children in care.

It's a great world in Barry-land, can I come and live there too? Oh no I can't, I'd be a migrant and might be better at your job than you and then you'd be the one unemployed and we can't have that. Only other people are the scoungers and leechers, the ones that Barry says are those.

[eFestivals]

There is no draw bridge to pull up. Its already up.

so there's been no changes proposed to the immigration rules?

If you are not part of this country, or at least the EU then they are not a major concern to me.

so you're only 'reasonable' to the people whose names are on the list?

I don't want to pull up any current draw bridge for anyone who lives here. I don't believe the proposed benefit cap does that.

So it affects no one then, and that communist Eric Pickles is wrong to tell Dave Moron that it'll cost more than it will save as well as destroy families?

[eFestivals]

People outside of the UK are not my primary worry...

I do worry about them, and I bet I probably personally do more to help them than you, but they are not my primary worry...

Oh, you're not telling me there anything I don't already know.

Your posts constantly make clear who your primary worry is. It doesn't need any explicit statement from you for anyone to know it.

(and if you made one, chances are it would be a huge porkie anyway ... but it would depend on that statement of course).

[MrZigster]

A great list from cracked.com yesterday:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

[eFestivals]

Because there has been a character attack... So I will defend myself...

you might wish to see it as a character attack, but I see giving with one hand while taking back more than that with the other as a statement of fact.0

I on average give away thousands to charity of my personal income. I find it more effective than just shouting "rable rable" on a forum telling everyone they are c**ts.

Really? If you're doing that then it's the govt handouts you're getting while being in the top 10% of incomes which is enabling you to do that.

Using the same basis as you like to unthinkingly apply to others, you're only a decent guy giving "thousands to charity of my personal income" via being a leech on society thru child benefit (which you think you should absolutely have, your statements have made that clear even tho you might accept you're going to lose it; tho you'll claw it back via manipulating the tax system) and tax breaks.

Dropping our borders and letting are own country got to shit isn't a real solution.

why would dropping our borders be "letting are [sic] own country got to shit"?

It's the immigrants who do nearly all the fucking work in this country to keep it on its feet. The rest of us swan around with a mis-placed sense of superiority while ordering those immigrants to do the tasks we think are beyond us.

And to be frank we are now on a subject matter removed away from the OP.

True. So back to that....

You keep saying the benefit cap is not going to have a negative impact on anyone, and so it's a reasonable thing to do.

Care to show me the proof of that? Or will you instead withdraw your comments about how you think it's reasonable to make children suffer for their 'misfortune' of having been born into a large family?

[eFestivals]

Care to show your proof of someone who will be hurt...

care to take on board the fact that £26k won't even pay the market rents that some large families pay, meaning there's zero money with which to feed their children?

How come the leaders of the Church you attend have managed to recognise the impact but you can't?

How come comrade Eric Pickles has managed to recognise the impact but you can't?

If it's not going to hurt anyone then it's not going to have any effect at all and there's no point the govt doing it.

How many frigging times do I need to repeat it? FFS.

Edited March 6, 2012 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Still no real example then..

you've said the bbc can find no one - yet I've seen features on the bbc tv news which have found plenty. So that part of your claim is a lie.

And if you truly believe there's no real examples of people it will affect, you need to ask yourself why the govt are doing it and why they claim it will save them £167M, and affect 67,000 claimants (note: claimants. The number of people it affects is greater).

For examples see this:-

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/pound-26k-benefit-cap-affect-1-000-families/story-15214078-detail/story.html

[abdoujaparov]

I'll just repeat this for the hard of understanding

the cap will in one move tip nearly every out-of-work family with more than four children who aren't already in poverty below the line. Those who are already below the poverty threshold – defined as 60% of median household income – will be forced even further into hardship and 132,000 children could be affected in total.

so, obviously, no reall impact at all

[abdoujaparov]

Ever thought this cap might just drive down the rip off rents Neil ?

[eFestivals]

Its not about believing if they exist or not... Its about looking at some REAL examples and working out how many will be effected to the point where they can't live.

The govt haven't done that, they've simply said "£26k is the most we'll pay. If it costs you more than that to live, tough shit".

Which has nothing reasonable about it. Nothing about that is based on a family's needs, it's just an arbitary cap.

The ones put up by the BBC showed expenditure on things which are clearly nice to haves and not essentials. Meaning these families can restructure and still have a house over their head and although effected by this cut they won't be put under by it.

I just googled for 5 bedroom houses in Stoke Newington (one of the cheaper areas of London). The cheapest that came up was £750pw, which is £39k a year - JUST FOR HOUSING.

Yeah, they can cut out the essentials, eh?

If after some analysis we discover that in effect there are [b[very few real families who will put in unsurviable positions by this change

even if it's your guessed at "very few" - when the govt says 67,000 - that's still real families who will be turfed out of their house onto the street or their children will starve.

And the "very few" you are now saying is not the none that you previously claimed.

I don't think anyone here truly believes they will be walking past large families squating under railway bridges any time soon.

not in your neighbourhood, so you can keep pretending they don't exist, don't panic.

The reality is we need to cut our budget. If money is going to people who don't need it, like me and Child Benefit, then it is going to go. If people are getting more than £26k in money and they don't need it, and are just using it to have sky tv then it is going to go.

If people have a cushie life on benefits then I've no objection to that being cut.

Implementing an arbitrary cut that has no regard to need is not only going to hit the some people who might have a cushie life on benefits.

If you have had ten kids then yeah you might be getting the culture shock of your life right now that something a whaky move. And I expect in the future people wlll consider the number of children they have and I think its fine for the government to say benefits will only go so far.

Fine - so the govt says that now, and they bring that in in 18 years time, so that no one has their kids unaware of the consequences they might bring on those kids.

It is you who is against ANY cut.

bollocks am I.

If a case can be made for a (say) 10% cut in everyone's benefits BASED ON THEIR NEEDS then I'm all for it.

What I cannot tolerate and which cannot be called 'reasonable' by anyone with more than one brain cell or gross greed driving their whole being is an arbitrary cut which has no regard to people's needs.

Your joined up thinking isn't joined up at all... Your just saying "rable rable rable" really loud to a limited nodding audience...

Yeah, that's me and it's not you.

Care to show me where you referenced what a family needs (rather than what you say they don't need) in anything you just said?

Nothing that you said referenced a family's needs and how they might be fulfilled. You say just like Dave Moron that they don't need more than £26k without looking at anything for why they might need more than £26k.

Your own greed rates higher than children's needs. It's the mindset of the unthinking selfish.

[eFestivals]

I want to point out you talk about peoples "needs" and "rights" but you never talk about peoples "responsibilities"...

When someone becomes unemployed any talk about their responsibilities becomes just about meaningless.

You can say "it would have been more responsible to have only had one kid" all you like, but nothing about that addresses the real situation they find themselves in.

And the likes of you have responsibilities too - such as the responsibility to not support an arbitrary cap on benefits that will cause children to suffer as a result.

At the point a family is in such need that they require the state to help them, their responsibility to support their kids is, in essence, transferred to the likes of YOU.

So why are you not also talking about YOUR responsibility towards helping that family to survive? You love to bang on about family values, you love to state how faith makes a person a better person, you love to bang on about how people should stand up and take on their responsibilities.

So why do you manage none of those things yourself? Why is it that you believe you have a greater responsibility to give your family three holidays a year than you do to stop children being punished for the bad luck and circumstances of their parents?

[eFestivals]

I think what we are coming to Neil is big families cost money...

Think before you fuck

Small minded moron.

Do you get the calculator out each time your missus spreads her legs to find out if you can afford her services? You're the last of the true romantics, eh?

And having got the calculator out, have you thought about every situation, and how you have not covered them all, making YOU no more responsible than those you deem less responsible than you?

Have you planned the full 18 years ahead with your kid, so if the govt changes the rules and starts charging for schools you've got the money put by before you fuck?

Cos all of the same things apply to you as they do for those you mindlessly condemn. If you're too stupid to see that, I can't help you with your stupidity.

[eFestivals]

And why aren't you taking responsibility for that family and passing up on the fancy sound system you wish to buy and giving the money to them ?

Greedy fucker

Unlike you, I'm not trying to get out of my responsibility towards the society of which that large family is a member.

I'm not saying "fuck 'em" as you are.

I'm not saying that society ceases to be responsible for them as you are.

I'm not saying "I deserve three holidays a year for me and mine and fuck that family" as you are.

I'm not saying "I'm more deserving of child benefit while being in the top 10%, but fuck that family they can sleep on the street" as you are.

I'm not saying that society cannot afford to support that family as you are.

I'm saying that society has a responsibility towards them. I am saying that I am a part of society no different to them. I am saying I'll take the financial hit if there is one.

Spot the difference? Or do you remain blinded by politically and financially inept dogma and sheer selfish greed?