Harming children for no good reason

[Brigadier]

It's interesting and noteworthy that you refused to say if you thought that claimants should receive sufficient for decency.

Your opening post of this thread (my underlining)....

"Today, the High Court ruled that the benefits cap, one of the Tories’ flagship welfare policies, is unlawful, because it amounts to illegal discrimination against single parents with small children."

"Welfare reform as part of the coalition government’s austerity measures has driven thousands more people into poverty and in many tragic cases, some deaths occurred after individuals were declared fit to work. Austerity was not inevitable. It was an ideologically-motivated programme designed to force the poorest and most vulnerable in our society to shoulder the burden of a financial crisis that they had less than nothing to do with creating."

Was the financial crisis caused by huge banks gambling themselves into bankruptcy, or was it caused by families living in poverty? Where should the axe fall?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...le-parents-youth-children-cruel-a7803106.html

I was especially interested by what the Daily Mail had to say about this latest Tory scandal:

" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ."

I was only interested in your stance; capped, or uncapped.
You have eventually, in a round-a-bout way, come down on the latter.

edited typo

 

[Brigadier]

Like your pension, perhaps?

The longer you live to draw it, the more it costs. It doesn't stop being paid once you've been collecting it for 20 years.

If you had a child with, say, kidney failure, and your NHS healthcare was capped at £25k per person per lifetime, would you stop dialysis once you hit the budget limit?

Irrelevant to this thread; i refer you to your opening post.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I believe it's in the region of 384 per week.

Thank you.


So JohnD, and your office staff, how much do you have to earn, to take home £384 per week?
Just out of interest, how much for the previous limit of £500 per week?

Do you think that is fair on people who, while working hard, earn less?
No good saying they should be paid more - they should but aren't.


How do people who, while working hard, earn less than that manage with the choices you have mentioned?

 

[Brigadier]

if you can tell me the maximum amount it costs to keep a family, possibly including members with special needs, and including the children of that family, sufficient for claimants and especially their children to be fed, housed and clothed to a decent standard, and sufficient to lead decent lives, then I might be able to say that's the maximum figure required.

Can you do that?

I have known families with children who, by any reasonable definition, are "neglected", yet have far more in the way of material possessions, clothes, food, holidays, etc, than i could have ever dreamed of. All wrapped up in a Porsche, a Range Rover, and a million-pound house.
But if you measure a "decent life" in terms of cash only, they definitely had / have one.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

if you can tell me the maximum amount it costs to keep a family, possibly including members with special needs, and including the children of that family, sufficient for claimants and especially their children to be fed, housed and clothed to a decent standard, and sufficient to lead decent lives, then I might be able to say that's the maximum figure required.

This is a good argument for a universal basic income that everyone receives regardless, or a negative income tax. It is a poor argument for unemployment benefits since it leaves very little incentive to work if you can have a 'decent standard' (i.e. better than low income workers) by doing no work at all.
(This is a separate issue from those who cannot work, of course).

 

[Deleted member 63160]

How do people who, while working hard, earn less than that manage with the choices you have mentioned?

Some time ago, I worked for about 5 years on social housing contracts, 8 jobs a day usually, on a large estate near Portsmouth. The working families seemed to smoke less and were very rarely found drinking during the day. I never found dirty pins, mirrors, blades, packets of glucose and so on, hidden around the house either. The ones working often had smaller TVs and sometimes just terrestrial channels. Seemed they maybe thought a bit more where their cash was going.

 

[JohnD]

But if you measure a "decent life" in terms of cash only

And do you?

 

[Nozzle]

Governments and economies work on cash, that is what they do. There is no borrowing or trading of "hope", "joy", "sorrow", "anger", "hunger", "success" etc. It's cash. They take cash, they give cash, they borrow cash, they sometimes even pay it back. Agencies are then expected to convert said cash into results.

Nozzle

 

[Brigadier]

And do you?

It was self-evident in my post that, no, i do not.

 

[JohnD]

Do you think that children should have shoes in good condition? clothes that fit? showers? meals? books? haircuts? school uniforms and games kit?

 

[Nozzle]

All those things and more besides, yes. And they're all very cheap indeed. Even on "only" £20k/year

Nozzle

 

[Brigadier]

Do you think that children should have shoes in good condition? clothes that fit? showers? meals? books? haircuts? school uniforms and games kit?

One day in the garden, my youngest - he was probably 2 or so at the time - put a little cloth "book bag" into the back of his car

like this one,

and got in.


"What are you doing?", I asked him.


"I'm off to work!" he replied, and he scooted off.


Kids can have all of the material things, but what will probably stand them in best stead for life is having good role models, and love.

 

[Nozzle]

Cracking ethic there, well done.

Nozzle

 

[Doggit]

I believe benefits should be sufficient for claimants and especially their children to be fed, housed and clothed to a decent standard, and sufficient to lead decent lives.

Now what makes you think it isn't. The governments sets a cap, and people then have to live within that cap. Why should people on benefits get more than the national wage, and far more than many low pad workers

If a cap means that that parent then has to get a job, or find a smaller place to live, then so be it, it's up to them as which way they decide to handle the cap. Benefits are not a lifestysle choice, and should not be seen as such, but it's interesting to see that you seem to advocate it.

 

[Nozzle]

Perhaps if benefit claimants are not ready or responsble to use cold hard cash in the open market to do The Right Thing - then they could instead receive payment in-kind? That is to say, instead of "universal tokens" (pound notes), they could instead have non-universal tokens, with which to look after themselves and their children. Food tokens, fuel tokens, rent tokens, transport tokens, and just as important, tokens to buy a suit and apply for jobs. Though of course this is state intevention - something socialists hold dear, but only under very strict and limited circumstances.

It's like a nice hand-out hamper allowance from dear old HMG to help them seek a job. It could be named Job Seekers Allowance.

Nozzle