In hoping the benefits cap may prove to be A Good Thing?

Can you all stop and think before posting about the 26k limit.

Because we're not talking about 26k. We're talking about 35k.

If I want to get my hands on 26k worth of material goods and services, I have to pay tax on it.

Therefore talking about someone working for 26k is not an equivalent of someone collecting 26k in benefits.

It's a really important distinction to make.

but the average worker is getting top-up benefits if they have children. If they don't have children they won't, but then they won't have the associated costs either. A person on JSA will get HB but only £67 per week to live off, which is hardly equivalent to £26000 per year).

This shift in the last few decades of seeing those out of work, or claiming benefits, as scroungers whose excesses need to be capped is extremely depressing.

Or in short, if you can't be bothered to read all that (but you should!)

Having lots of children growing up in poverty costs our society money in other ways.

benefits will be lowered to an unaffordable ammount? still more than what the average worker earns.

Why don't people research their facts?

A large part of that £26,000 is HB, which varies across the country. Most people on the UK on benefits are not getting anywhere near that sum.

Most people with a household income of £26,000 take-home pay will also be getting tax credits and CB if they have children, which means they are living on more than £26,000.

"I fail to see why the state should fund people who don't choose to look and plan ahead."

Let's leave aside the moral argument for a minute (i.e. it's immoral to leave children suffering in poverty through no fault of their own when we can do something about it).

Let's look instead at the bigger picture.

I absolutely want the state to do what it can to prevent people falling into poverty, because it benefits us all. And because, actually having children growing up in poverty cost us money!
(And I don't mean through benefits).

A government study called "The costs of child poverty for individuals and society" concluded:

"the consequences of child poverty are serious, far-reaching and multi-faceted ...
Child poverty ... takes its toll on communities, the cumulative effects of disadvantage and inequality, reducing social cohesion (HM Treasury, 2008)...

Review findings indicate that ... there are wider social implications of doing nothing about the 2.9 million children in our society growing up in poverty.

These wider impacts, including

• losses to the economy through reduced productivity,
• lower educational attainment,
• poor health
• and low skills,
• mean stunted economic growth and
• limited ability to compete in global markets (HM Treasury, 2008).

They also place an additional burden on the costs of public services (i.e. health care and children?s services) that has implications for all taxpayers, and arguably impact on everyone?s, ?day to day experiences of safety and well-being? (HM Treasury, 2008, p. 6).

Although it is unlikely that we will ever be able to precisely calculate the full cost of child poverty ... Existing approximations offer a useful marker of the economic cost associated with not ending child poverty (£40 billion per year according to TUC 2007 figures) and are of great importance in light of evidence that the UK population continues to underestimate the extent, severity and the structural basis of child poverty, and so fails to appreciate its true personal and social cost (HM Treasury, 2008; Fabian Society, 2005).

Reductions in child poverty will benefit everyone: more children will fulfil their potential, more families and communities will prosper and the UK will succeed.

This is why it is in everyone?s interests to play their role in eradicating child
poverty. (HM Treasury, 2008, p. 32)"

Full report here

i think the people who need benefits should get them but i think £26,000 after tax is a lot of money and more than your average working joe.
i think a cap is needed for the ones who have no intention of ever contributing to the state and will keep popping out kid after kid so they can get more cash.

justwantcheese- oh if it was as easy as that. In the area I live in, there are no council properties, Maggie sold them all off in the 80s (how about looking/planning ahead then?) There is a 3 year waiting list for those in Private or temp accommodation, whether you work or not. Meanwhile, Landlords are well aware of the council not being able to house people, forcing them to look to private housing, and of course, these Landlords rub their hands with glee as they know that desperation to be housed will mean people will take whatever they can get, however dear it is or in whatever sub standard condition it happens to be. In our area, the council actively encourages you to lie to Private Landlords about receiving a top up- this is what they did to a close friend of mine who was on the list for social housing. They pay people's deposit to move into private rented housing.
Now, the benefits will be lowered to what is an unaffordable amount, there are no jobs available partly, IMHO as there has never been a cap on migrant workers, who will work for less than minimum wage. Which adds to the countries struggle as they then send money home rather than boosting the economy by spending in shops etc. Its a vicious circle and those who are largely not responsible for it (as someone else said the Jeremy Kyle guest type of people are in social housing, whilst everyone else struggles) are time and time again kicked in the teeth.

We know full well our own government lied to us all- look at the Spartacus Report. They cannot be trusted and frankly they need to go. Cameron is the worst PM we've ever had, and Clegg is just his whipping boy.

Of course mother but saying you can't cap benefits because I have 4,5,6 or more kids is wrong.If we all had however many kids we wanted instead of what we could afford the country would be even more up shit creek than it is.

"I fail to see why the state should fund people who don't choose to look and plan ahead."

Do you totally lack any imagination?

What about those people who lose their job because their company goes bust because there's a global recession and they cvan't get a new one because there are not enough to go round, and the hires are favouring cheap bright young things, over people getting close to retirement. Or because their company folds because of rising oil prices pushing their fuel bills up. Or because they work for a bank which went bust?

Or what about those who lose their job through illness, or because they have a disabled child and they need to be a carer at home.

Yes, the state should provide for these. We pay in via national insurance and taxes, and the state makes sure you are protected for thecatastrophic thing you haven't thought of happening - and trust me, you haven't thought of everything!

Nilgirl many of the squeezed middle are often the same or worse than many on benefits.They can't not be.

Are we supposed to just sweep that under the carpet,pretend it's not so,care about 1 section of society and not another.

It's for this very reason a cap is so important.I mean if you take CB out of it some will be on £50K and that's with a cap!!!!!!£50 friggin K!!!!!!!!

When the government starts doing something about Vodafone's tax avoidance, Boots off shore accounting schemes in Switzerland, Phillip Green and his questionable use of a bank account in Monaco, then I'll start worrying about benefit caps.

What I hate about this government is how they judge everybody by their standards. Yep, you lot might like cheating the system out of tax/getting your spouse to take your driving points/cheating with expenses...but not everyone is quite so sneaky.

On a tangent, Andrew Lansley was on the BBC saying that the reason that Doctors/Nurses and MW's are opposing the NHS reforms is because they are pissed off about their pay.

God forbid the true reason is because we give a shit about patients!

Do you honestly think I'd be in nursing if pay was my prime concern?

TWAT.

sunshine, I'm actually not complaining about higher earners paying higher tax rates (although I think taking 50% of anyone's salary is a bit unfair) I am just pointing out that they are already doing quite a lot to support the economy and people are still screaming "It's just not good enough! We want more!"

Just- study social policy from the 19th century, then you will understand why posters have the opinion that they have.

What a nasty post.

Hully how do you know I'm vile exactly,you don't know me,you've never met me?You don't know what I do in my free time,who I vote for or how much I do for others.

Simply disagreeing with you and agreeing with what the vast majority of people in this country believe does not make me vile.

Sorry £35K a year is not suffering.

For this to save money the government is going to have to break the law and not follow section 17 or 47 of the Children Act. This will not hit certain families, because if their children are on "Plans" money is available from a different budget. If children are removed because the family has gone into 'crisis' then it will cost at least three times as much, for the fostering allowance and associated costs.

This will only hit families who are trying their best, but are victim of circumstances. The government can only go so far with 'failing families' (as many on here seem to want something done about "this sort" "who curns out kids") because of EU law.

I have posted on the thread in chat how this will effect newly redundant people and how this will not save money because extra expense will be picked up under the social care bill.

They tried something similar in the 80's, it didn't lower rents.

Heh, nice swerve away from dealing with sunshine's post, MrsHeffley.

Actually I have immense sympathy for people struggling on a small wage. I also have huge sympathy for people on what used to be a decent wage but is now dwarfed by housing costs.

I even manage to support you getting child benefit and free medical care (including pregnancy) and free education for your children even though I have no children and am disabled and unable to work but am paying taxes (same as you except income tax) for you to have these things.

I'm unamused by a bid to set the squeezed middle against the very poor and sick while executive pay has gone up out of all proportion and the rich get top-rate tax-relief on their pensions. For example.

Thanks Mrs Heffley. I had a lovely job, I was a lecturer. Dh was a lecturer too. We had four kids, although cheated slightly because the last were twins. I'm so sorry I didn't plan for three children to be disabled, and I apologise most sincerely on dh's behalf, he didn' t mean to get ill, he didn't mean to be prescribed the wrong medication, which made him unable to walk and left him in constant pain, as well as various other disabilities. I will of course tell everybody I know that they shouldn't have children just in case. Alternatively, back in the real world......

Here here HullyGully- like I said, the Tories are known for their legs up and blind eyes to their big business chums naughty dealings. It should be illegal in this country to have offshore accounts, all earnings should be declared and tax paid accordingly.

don't understand why people are having a go at the landlords and high earners,shouldn't we be discussing why people think the are entitled to £26,000 a year. This doesn't happen in any other country. If the rent is too high then they should move,a lot of people are working and getting by by the skin of their teeth,are limiting how many children they have because they can't afford them and moving to cheaper areas. They are earning a lot less than £26,000.

Yes, like Tony Blair who it was revealed just last week has lots of lovely off shore accounts etc to keep his money nicely secure from the tax man. And I'm sure he isn't the only one using clever accountancy to do the same.

Mrs H you are really quite vile. I imagine you all twisty and bitter supping on your cup of green bile and orgasming over the sufferings of others.

Not a pretty sight.

I have twins too,I stopped at 3.I think we both know plenty of families have more children than they can afford because they know the state will fund their choice.Many people can only afford 1 or 2 children,they look ahead.Why should those less sensible use their lack of foresight as a reason not to cap benefits.

Plenty of families entitled to nothing are struggling to pay these huge rents/mortgages in expensive areas because they errr have to. Considering all their other costs too plenty must have less in their pockets than those on benefits.

Anybody give a fig about them?Nah thought not.