To be sick of politicians using 'fairness' as justification for tax rises?

I question the morals of anyone that can't debate without reducing their argument to this. The poor and disabled are human like everyone else. You will have genuine cases and those that are abusing the system. To pretend otherwise is beyond patronising and implies they're a different species when I can assure you they are not. I grew up as one of them. I know exactly who they are.

We must aim to stamp out abuse of the system at all levels. Just because rich people do bad things, it doesn't mean the rest of us are off the hook.

It's all well and good saying "you can leave money in the business" but that doesn't pay my mortgage. Also leaving money in the business means you pay corporation tax on it so I'll still get hit with a tax bill.

Yes there's more flexibility and you can decide when you take money out to minimise tax liability but ultimately you still pay tax on whatever hits your personal bank account through self-assessment.

I'm very happy to pay the tax I owe but it's annoying when people act like being a business owner is some kind of tax haven. HMRC gets me for corporation tax, employer NIC, business rates, my own personal tax return (plus the VAT I have to put on everything I sell). My annual transfers to HMRC would easily dwarf most top rate tax payers.

Right, this isn't about DLA. Stop trying to hijack the thread. My point is that there are ways that the benefits cap can be lifted. Disability is one of them or you can work a pretty low number of hours.

I'm so tired of posters trying to hijack everything thread to make it about disbaolity benefits. There are loads of threads about that already. Go and have the debate there where you can shame people for even questioning whether they spiraling bill is out of control.

Impossible to say. If it's spent on holidays and cheap imports then the majority will leave our economy. If it stays within the UK then it may stimulate growth or it may simply go in people's bank accounts. Ultimately we know that we will not see this amount back in tax receipts.

I really hate this line of argument. 1/16 children qualify for DLA. When you start having lots of children then your odds of having a disabled child increase accordingly

Remember also that you can qualify for the lowest level of DLA and have the capacity lifted. We are not always talking about severe disability.

Also, if one parent is disabled or works 16 hours then the cap is lifted. This is true for a two parent household.

I’ve got one going spare, if anyone wants the DLA.

But they can also take the 10 years of sleepless nights, the marks currently all up my arms, the bite mark on my partner’s shoulder, everything we own being broken or covered in bodily fluids, the constant shouting.

I mean I obviously love the kid. He’s a turd, but he’s our turd.

But if people are so keen to get disability benefit, they really ought to have tried the life that comes with it for size too.

I really hate this line of argument. 1/16 children qualify for DLA. When you start having lots of children then your odds of having a disabled child increase accordingly

Remember also that you can qualify for the lowest level of DLA and have the capacity lifted. We are not always talking about severe disability.

Also, if one parent is disabled or works 16 hours then the cap is lifted. This is true for a two parent household.

Would you want your child to be disabled?

Can also be a child.

Not if a member of the household is on disability benefits.

There’s a cap on benefits.

Except it is nothing like that, because national finances don't work in the same way as household finances.

It was terrible satire. None of the people I referenced in my OP are living extreme lives in the way you were trying to suggest. If you think that's extreme you really need to spend a day in my hometown.

If you genuinely think my post was poor maths rather than satire it does make me doubt your ability to understand and engage in political discourse

Lots of things are arguably part of the human condition. Murder, rape, stealing.. all of these things have existed for as long as humans have existed. Does that mean we have to tolerate these things as a society?

I know you will suggest that the analogies I make are ridiculous but my point is that something being part of the human condition doesn't mean that we have to support or accept it. It also doesn't mean you have to starve it out of people. There are other ways but the mechanisms do often have to be quite sophisticated. There are ways for example that you can directly help children in poverty without giving more money to the parents. You tackle key areas of inequality without enriching the parents' lives. Obviously this is controversial but it is possible. Nobody starves but equally feckless parents don't profit from their feckless decisions of having more and more children they can't afford knowing that their benefits will increase.