Then the lower figures are not caps, are they?
Harming children for no good reason
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Sponsored Links
You've been told wrong.
£257.69 is a cap, and it is the cap that might apply to you if you were here and needed help, for example if your life overseas went wrong or Theresa could not reach a suitable agreement about citizenship and the EU, or if there was another financial crisis and state guarantees were not enough, or did not apply, to reimburse your savings and pensions at the expense of younger taxpayers in one or more of the countries that might argue over or deny responsibility. Imagine if you were in Greece, and not an EU citizen, or if you were in a country where there was much unemployment, and the young voters chose a government that was hostile to pensioners.
Last edited:
From YOUR link in YOUR original post:
Sponsored Links
it looks like the article was simplified to get the fundamental message across.
You'll notice it says the government might be forced to alter or scrap the benefits cap, which is probably true.
If they had been plagued with people trying to think of reasons to disagree, for example looking at job ads that might or might not pay more than a cap, or pouring hatred and contempt onto all people who need help as an excuse to punish them all, it would have been a much longer article.
Going back to the fundamental problem, the government has imposed a policy that says "according to our calculations, you need £x for rent, £x for food, £x to clothe yourself, £x to feed and clothe your children to achieve the minimum necessary standard; but we've decided you can't have as much as you need to reach the minimum necessary standard. It is our policy that you must live in unacceptable conditions."
The court has decided that this is wrong.
You'll notice it says the government might be forced to alter or scrap the benefits cap, which is probably true.
If they had been plagued with people trying to think of reasons to disagree, for example looking at job ads that might or might not pay more than a cap, or pouring hatred and contempt onto all people who need help as an excuse to punish them all, it would have been a much longer article.
Going back to the fundamental problem, the government has imposed a policy that says "according to our calculations, you need £x for rent, £x for food, £x to clothe yourself, £x to feed and clothe your children to achieve the minimum necessary standard; but we've decided you can't have as much as you need to reach the minimum necessary standard. It is our policy that you must live in unacceptable conditions."
The court has decided that this is wrong.
D
Doggit
In Kent, we have everything but high schools, so I did a search to check, and that's what came back. Oh blimley, somethings just clicked, and I have to appoligise secure spark, we do have a Herne Bay high school, so I have to appologise profusely. All our schools have names, so high school doesn't come into it.
However, it is you who pours hatred and contempt onto all people who disagree with you.
along with the majority of the workforce who earn less than we intend to give you.
Presumably the Government, should they so wish, can, or can try to, change the law.
AFAIK the majority of people needing help do not have such a combination of problems and expenses that their needs exceed the cap.
You have looked at the list of benefits, haven't you? Each of them attempts to address a need. Which are the needs you would prefer to leave unmet?
Not all.
This one, though.
maybe this one?
this one
this one
this one
Last edited:
Going back to the actual fundamental problem - the actual fundamental problem is that the intent of some of these benefits is not for the able bodied to live on them without ever needing to get a job. Those who can work should, as they're dragging down the reputation of the genuinely needy. None of the above precludes anyone getting some gainful employment and thus alleviating the self-imposed poverty.
Nozzle
@EFLImpudence
With respect @JohnD is right to a degree.
The info I posted has different levels of cap on benefits depending on situation and area. Without looking I think it was 4 different levels.
I posted the £384 figure which is outside of London and a single parent with children as that was the general basis of the original discussion of kids having kids to earn benefits and @JohnD saying it harms children.
For @JohnD to bring in a single person with no children cap figure is a moot point as this was nothing to do with his original post so the £384 figure still stands to the original question asked.
@JohnD I'm sorry but if you feel that £384 is not enough to look after a family let's put it into real figures.
You would have to GROSS £480 a week roughly to NET that figure. With an average (Inc London which does skew the figures higher as the £384 is outside of London) of £500ish a week GROSS working how do the average family cope working 40 hour weeks while being on the poverty line and harming their children by earning the same as a claimant AND seeing their child 40 hours less a week?
Surely the working parent is the worst one as they "palm their child off" to go to work and earn an extra £20 odd quid a week.
Tell me that's a system you are proud of!?
Jon
Edit due to me getting NET and GROSS backwards.
With respect @JohnD is right to a degree.
The info I posted has different levels of cap on benefits depending on situation and area. Without looking I think it was 4 different levels.
I posted the £384 figure which is outside of London and a single parent with children as that was the general basis of the original discussion of kids having kids to earn benefits and @JohnD saying it harms children.
For @JohnD to bring in a single person with no children cap figure is a moot point as this was nothing to do with his original post so the £384 figure still stands to the original question asked.
@JohnD I'm sorry but if you feel that £384 is not enough to look after a family let's put it into real figures.
You would have to GROSS £480 a week roughly to NET that figure. With an average (Inc London which does skew the figures higher as the £384 is outside of London) of £500ish a week GROSS working how do the average family cope working 40 hour weeks while being on the poverty line and harming their children by earning the same as a claimant AND seeing their child 40 hours less a week?
Surely the working parent is the worst one as they "palm their child off" to go to work and earn an extra £20 odd quid a week.
Tell me that's a system you are proud of!?
Jon
Edit due to me getting NET and GROSS backwards.
You've looked at the list of benefits (haven't you?) so you know that the amount that a person in need qualifies for depends on how many problems they have. You'd be in a very sad state if you had all of them. You'd be in a sad state if you reached the cap; even sadder if you had so many problems that you needed more but the government said you couldn't have your needs met.
It is very difficult for a single person with young children to fulfil their parental responsibilities and also to work full time. Even harder for a person who is not single but has a deadbeat partner. I've seen people on very badly paid unsatisfactory work trying to make a bit extra. I've seen parents unable to take the bus to the shops when they no-one at home so have to take kids and pay fares for them.
It's quite common for (job + childcare) = less money than (no job + no childcare)
It will vary with your family and social circumstances.
I can't follow Aqua's calculation of (gross pay less deductions) = £384 so I don't know the gross figure.
It's quite common for (job + childcare) = less money than (no job + no childcare)
It will vary with your family and social circumstances.
I can't follow Aqua's calculation of (gross pay less deductions) = £384 so I don't know the gross figure.
D
Doggit
Well supposedly; that's until you're spotted in ibeza on holiday when you've been claiming that you're bad back keeps you immobile.
I have to agree with you on this one. But the general idea, is to get into a job, and then progress higher, or to a better one.
Sure I've looked at the list - only two of them likely to preclude someone from being able to get gainful employment easily. A further few more are there to actually make work a more attractive option than not having work. The last is just a replacement for the rest in the list. Having a dead husband/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend is not a valid excuse to not have a job.
Nozzle
Sponsored Links
