So they plan to cap benefit at 26.5K per family?
Personally I believe that is far too generous a sum but that’s a whole other blog.
We are being led to believe that this figure encompasses ALL welfare payments and IDS the donkey, swears blind that no-one would be made homeless as a result.
Well Mr Smith, what about these people and trust me they are not an isolated case.
You want to cap them to 26.5K a year when the monthly rent bill comes to £8,000? In rent alone that is £96,000 a year, who knows what the council tax and water rates are but we will also be paying for those too.
There are plenty others…
Sponging ne’er do well
This one disowned her rioting son in case they took her cushy pad off her.
It is time to make people move IDS. A working Joe would have to earn 300,000 a year just to be allowed to apply for a place on the waiting list for these residences.
And now they are wringing their hands over whether or not they should include child benefit in that figure. Honestly have we had a national stroke or what?
Boadicea's Chariot 
Hi Furry, I have just been reading about this in the press.
I absolutely agree that a reform of the Welfare system is well overdue, but there seems to be a fair amount of confusion as to what effect this cap will have.
It seems to me, from a hurried reading, that although it may save some money for the government, it could just end up pushing the cost of re-housing etc onto local authorities, so Council tax bills will be increased.
As far as I can see, the only reason for subsiding these large families in houses that they could never afford to buy or run is because of the lack of investment in social housing, especially in London and the South-East. It’s an expensive nonsense. If they actually went out to work, they would lose these houses, so there is no incentive to ever work again.
Ferret I have to agree with you, but up to a point. The figure must be capped yes, but the problem is the housing cost, here in London rent for a 2 bedroom flat is £1300 per month, whereas in Middlseborough you can buy a street for that figure. So there has to be a variation for location as with state workers. My daughter moved from Hackney (employment) to Hull with the NHS, she was promoted and got a decent rise, but lost £3000 London allowance.
Of course if government housing was better managed then there is no problem, or if landlords and property owners were encouraged to let then the shortage of places would diminish and rents would drop.
I would also put a cap on family allowance, first 2 kids fien, more than that and it is up to the parents to find the money or wear a condom, better yet neuter them.
Ferret: I am a great believer in the Chinese social system. “You too lazy to work? You too lazy to eat!”
Absolutely, agree with you, Rick about the cost of housing in London and the SE. The cap of £26,000, which is about £36,000 if one pays tax, which presumably those on benefits don’t, may well seem overgenerous, if you live in the North, but wouldn’t go nearly so far in the South.
There is the issue of “child” poverty, but poverty is a relative term here in the UK. Any decent society should always protect the vulnerable but it’s time these people took responsibility for their own choices ; no one forced them to produce vast numbers of children!
Minty I get angry when I see all this “Child Poverty” with the parents sitting there smoking, drinking and using mobile phones for inane chatter. Use the money to feed YOUR kid and stop asking me for some.
Most mobile or any phone calls are really about nothing, think back when you were young, you used a phone only if it was important and if mum/dad let you, why because they paid the bill and had kids and a house to look after, hence idiotic phone chat was banned.
Araminta: the problem with a number of dole recipients is that they make more money being on the dole than they would, could, by working. The more children they have the more money they receive each month.
That fact tends to be universal. In Germany the birthrate went up after the child allowance was increased, mostly from council-housing-dwellers and their close kin. In the US, especially since the 1960s, ethnic minority groups have been made disproportionately dependent on the dole queue, hence the open contempt shown Asian immigrants and their children by the Democratic party in the US. Asians very rarely wind up being that easily controlled and are more able to act independently of the party as a result.
‘Think back to when you were young…’
We didn’t have a phone…
Hi Christopher,
I have to admit that it does indeed remove any incentive to work. Being handed something for nothing, except producing off-spring who grow up in the same mind-set, seems idiotic.
Asians here, do seem to value education rather more than some ethnic minorities, and they are quite an entrepreneurial group in the main.
If this cap on housing benefit, first of all, means that some unemployed and probably unemployable immigrants find they cannot afford to live in Britain, then tough. They could move to some part of the country where they can afford to live or I’ll contribute to a one-way ticket back to their country of origin. There is no reason they should expect to live in London, just because they fancy it. If the cap on child benefit stops at the first two, that should also have a salutary effect. Same one-way ticket home or for British claimants, no more producing children you don’t want just to get the money. Why not hand out vouchers for food and clothing instead of cash? I think IDS is being very gentle about this and the government needs to be much more brutal. There was an article in yesterday’s Scotland on Sunday about a Pakistani who is at risk of being deported because he does not have enough money in the bank to support himself. It appears that he has been given a job lecturing in journalism at De Montfort university. What is that going to contribute to Britain? Someone whose first language is not English teaching journalism at a second-rate university? Get rid oh him.
Ferret: It seems like one of those attention or vote getting “sound bites” to me. It will not work without a coordinated plan of carrot and stick, limiting the total amount of the payment is not sufficient, the length of time the payments can be received must also be addressed and some incentive for employment provided
Here’s a reasonably factual article from USA Today (not one of my favorite reads) the numbers are impressive, the welfare roles down by about 60% during the period 1995 to 2006.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-17-welfare-reform-cover_x.htm
A program of the Clinton Administration by the way, Christopher.
And, yes the numbers have certainly grown since 2006 due in most part to the toxic debt load, (also encouraged by Clinton)
Whole bloody country wants to get a grip!
Wogs+unemployment=deportation. Use the navy. Bet there wouldn’t be a housing shortage subsequently!
About time children’s allowance was stopped for everybody.
Don’t breed what you can’t feed.
No council homes for teenage unmarried mothers, make grandma accommodate them, watch the rate of abortions rise dramatically!
Summary eviction for subletting council houses.
No fancy private houses on the state, give them 3 houses together in Middlesborough!
Remove right of appeal on deportation, move them on out.
Concentration camps for pikies.
Unemployment should run out after one year, work or starve.
Unemployment should be worked for on public projects, no appearance for work, no money, seemple!
Deny free NHS medical treatment to non taxpayers.
What the hell is wrong with people/govt/bvishops over there?
If any normal tax paying white votes for anything but UKIP or the BNP they must be assumed to have the IQ of turkeys voting for christmas.
LW I have just read that article. One of the glaring points being that none of them have more than 4 children. None of this business of 12 kids on the state in the USA. The only people who have 12 kids here are the rich and the religious nutters and can afford to pay for themselves.
Just got home from work and have time to deal with this.
The funny thing is, I don’t blame the spongers, they are merely using a stupid system legitimately to their gain. Now it seems the gubmint is making noises about shutting down the freebie culture and the do gooders and south african peace crisp munching wasters are up in arms.
This cap they are suggesting is the equivalent of 35K a year FFS. Rick, I am sorry but a large percentage of London workers prepably dream of that kind of salary in recompense for the many hours of solid graft they put in. If the cap means a benefit dependant is unable to live in London then so be it, They can always move or heaven forfend get a job.
The basic truth behind all of this is that welfare is a last resort, a safety net to catch those wretched individuals from falling through the net. It should never be a career choice, and common sense dictates that under no circumstances should it be a preferable option to working for a living.
Look at this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/nov/16/young-jobseekers-work-pay-unemployment
These scroungers are up in arms because they are being expected to work for free. No they are not, they are being told to do some useful service to entitle them to a state handout. Un-effin-lucky aerosols you want cash you work for it one way or another. Am I the only one who can see this?
Ferret no you are not the only one. I agree with you completely they are being paid so work. there is a lot than they can do, starting by cleaning the railways of graffiti and litter the clearing the canals and making them viable, followed by building great big ships to send all the illegals home
Hospitals, soup kitchens, street cleaning, church roof wardens, night watch people, you name it. The people who are already slaving their buts off for minimum wage doing these jobs can be promoted to management with the idle wallas their workforce. You either work your shift or you don’t get your dole. At least then I would start seeing some results from the billions we are just giving away.
Heres another one, bring back the petrol pump attendant.
Ferret you are preaching to the converted. One can hardly blame any taxpayer bunking off to somewhere else in the world.
I think the place needs a serious revolt, like a national strike by all taxpayers and let the chips fall where they may.
in answer to your title
“very stupid” and they are right because we accept it and vote them back in.
Mrs Osborne,
As ol’ Terry Dubya would put it on R2 of a Sunday, “I am leaning against an open door” 🙂
Here is an interesting fact. I come from a family of 12! Same parents! There are 28 grand children, but despite an average age of about 30, the grand children have only managed 8 children (great grand children) between them so given that declining reproduction rate we will probably die out. You will be relived to hear that nobody has ever been on benefits, well not significantly so anyway, and all pay tax!
sipu you were not born in the UK were you?
Availability of contraception in darkest Africa at the time?????
Rather bears out my #12.
Actually, CO, I was born in the UK as were most of us. Only 2 were actually conceived in Africa. My parents just wanted to have a big family. There certainly are benefits to having lots of children. We had a lot of fun.
Re your ‘religious nutter’ observation, my mum was Catholic, but not fanatically so, though it may well have played a part. My dad was a convert. But they both came from large families themselves, 6 and 8 respectively. Despite that, in my father’s case, his upbringing was austere and isolated, despite having exceedingly wealthy parents. He was greatly attracted to the warmth and love as exhibited by my mother’s immediate and extended family. As for money, they were reasonably well off at the beginning, but death duties and tax took their toll and by the time I came along, money was getting scarce. Hence the move to Africa and a farm where there was space to accommodate us, the cost of living considerably less and the life-style considerably better.
I watched a debate on this subject the other day. What really annoyed me was the language used.
Nick Clegg talked about how much money people earned on benefits. It might be a simple thing, but people who work earn money – those on benefits receive money. It’s about time that the difference was highlighted – then perhaps people might get the message that hey should give something back for what employed tax-payers are giving them.
CO, I have just read that LA, fun capital of the Land of the Free, has 90,000 people living on the streets. Yes, 90,000. Your favoured land obviously knows how to solve these problems.
Janus: that’s Los Angeles, one of the most poorly-run cities in one of the most poorly-managed states.
San Francisco is likely worse. The whole country isn’t quite that bad, however.
There was a item on the Biased Broadcasting Corporation news last night. The were interviewing a single mother with 5 kids who looked no more than middle thirties, complaining that she would no longer be able to afford the rent. The reporter did not question WHY she was a single mother with 5 kids. I am sure if she was a widow or the victim of some nasty divorce, they would have given this prominence, but they did not say if she just could not keep her legs together more often.
As with all Socialist solutions, the answer is always one size fits all. I am sure there are single mothers with 5 kids who DO deserve a lot of benefits, but I am equally sure that a large number don’t. If you cannot afford 5 kids, then do not have 5 kids. Simple, really.
Janus, your #24 A big number 90,000, but big counties have big problems, out of a total population of 310 million that’s about 300 homeless per million.
Copenhagen, the jewel in the crown of Denmark has around 3,000 homeless (out of a total country population of 5.5 million) that’s close to 550 homeless per million inhabitants. Your “Favoured Land” has a long way to go to catch up with what is by far the worst city in this nation. Are you doing anything? Beside casting stones at those who are.
Hi LW, in 1975, April or May, I think it was, there was National Geographic article ( I came across it in second hand book shop in Perth Western Australia in December 2003)about Rhodesia, the international pariah. (Mandela and South Africa had not yet hit the headlines.) The journalists wrote about the state of housing in that ‘racist, totalitarian’ regime. They concluded that no where in the country did they see poverty to compare with that which existed in certain parts of the US. This is not an anti-US observation, rather one that concurs with your comment about Denmark. Before you go searching for motes in the eyes of others, just look at the log in your own eye.
Hello Sipu: I’m sure such poverty still exists here, and no one can be satisfied with our progress in eliminating it. My clumsy attempt was to highlight the fact that large countries have large problems, and the raw numbers have little meaning. This forum has touched on this subject before. Is any death from starvation, or any life spend in miserable poverty acceptable? Is there a percentage of suffering, greater than zero, that meets some morality test, if so, is it practically achievable? Good questions both. Eliminating corruption in, and abuse of, a system of welfare are fine goals, eliminating the system of welfare, probably not.
A single mother with 5 children in her thirties (FEEG’s 26) – I thought most of them were still in their teens. Perhaps contraceptive pills should be handed out along with food and clothing vouchers instead of cash. That way all the immigrants would not be able to send our cash back to their relatives. That would help the British economy too.
Concentration camps for pikies, Christina? Yes, but they must be in Ireland.
Hi LW, I have just realised how my comment may have come across. I should have used ‘one’ instead of ‘you’. That was certainly my intention. I entirely agree with what both your comments, 27 and 29. Please accept my apologies.
This country, SA, as well as Rhodesia, came under serious flack during the middle part of the last century. Some of it was undoubtedly deserved, but much was based on a lack of understanding of the issues involved. For example, was the government justified in providing ‘white settlers’ with an infrastructure that far exceeded that offered to the indigenous people? I am talking schools, hospitals, roads, policing for example. The thing is that if whites were not given first world services, they would have left and the country would have collapsed economically and politically. Everybody would have been worse off. We believed that with time, we could raise the standards for all. These countries were young and the resources were not yet there to provide everybody with the conditions available in more developed nations. Those unfamiliar with the circumstances concentrated more on the level of disparity than the reasons for its existence. For that we were castigated.
You raise an interesting point about morality tests. To put it simply, if a couple are struggling to pay their sick child’s hospital bills, are they entitled to spend a dollar or two on a couple of cups of coffee? Coffee is a luxury, not a necessity. Is Britain justified in hosting the Olympics when there are children who cannot get treatment for certain diseases?
Sipu: No apology is necessary, I got your drift as they say (just south of Rourke’s?).