AIBU that the benefit cap is actually a cut on child benefit?

Its a cap on benefits, not one in particular. There choice to bring 8 children into the world so they cant complain about lack of money when none of the household income is actually earnt but handed to them by the state.

Perhaps capping benefits will mean people have to actually work to provide for any children they chose to have. A novel idea to many seeing how many are moaning re the cuts. Having children means taking responsibility and providing for them.

Go cold turkey with fags, other people do.

Thread no 3...

He also goes out more than we do, and you don't need sky movies, you can rent a DVD from you library for 50p a night or join love film for £10 a month.

I'm sorry, but if I were that hard-up then I'd be taking a good hard look at everything I'm spending on and remove anything that isn't a necessity.

Alcohol and cigarettes are not necessary. That's bollocks. He won't need to "choose between eating and heating", it just means he'd have to stop sucking on his cancer-sticks! Oh pity, poor old him. Whinge whine moan. Wah wah wah.

Sorry, but if they were sensible then they would easily manage with the cuts. That's absolutely shocking.

1. the family are living on more than many working families
2. they spend a huge amount on fags and booze- so it's rubbish to suggest they will have to go without food.
3. the op implies that these 2 parents are stepping up to their responsibilities- but there is no mention of the other 2 parents involved. There are 4 adults responsible altogether for bringing these children into the world. Where are they? Why aren't they contributing? Or are they off somewhere else with a load more children they've decided to bring into the world?
4. bottom line is- many of us couldn't afford to do what this family have done. If I decided to have 4 children, then shack up with someone else who already had a few kids, and then we decided to have a few more.... Well, I'd be in financial chaos! Most people limit their family to what they can afford. It's not the fault of everyone else that some people choose not to.

And presumably making it perfectly clear at the interview that he considers himself to be an educational software writer, regardless of the what the job on offer happens to be, ChickenLickn. Absolutely guaranteed to impress a prospective employer.

You can't tell me that in 11 years he has had no offer of a job, supermarket work, cleaner etc or been able to retrain. He has had eleven years for fuck sake. In elevn years I have managed to do all sorts of jobs, never had a problem as I have never been fussy.

Were this family specifically picked for the lack of sympathy they would engender?

"Raymond, a former educational software writer, has been jobless since 2001. ... Ray says: "The market for my skills dried up 10 years ago - there's a total lack of work in my area of expertise.""

So retrain, you lazy fecker! Like the rest of us have! And frankly, if you haven't worked in the field for ten years, you can't really claim 'expertise' in it any more. Sorry, but that is just demonstrating entitlement - 'I do this job and only this job, I will work at nothing else ...'

We don't have sky, we don't smoke, we don't drink lager. We also don't spend £32 (WTF!) on mobiles a week . None of these things essential.

I have a blackberry on contract - £20 a month (so £5 a week). DH has a pay and go cheap phone which he rarely uses, so say £1 a week. For £32 a week we could both have iphones!

Sorry, if people on benefits can afford all these luxuries then the benefit cap is not being set low enough.

That's bollocks about retraining, if you are on job seekers you pay about £20 per course while others on the same course pay over £100.

They can stop smoking.

They don't need sky.

Perhaps if she was ill, he wasn't working, and they already had 5 kids in a 3 bed house, they shouldn't have had another child?
Capped benefits might have made them cost that out more carefully.
In some ways, I think that there should be temporary levels of capping, for those with school age children... but that wouldn't deliver money back now.

"if you are on job seekers you can't retrain or you will lose your benefit, not even night classes!"
That is ridiculous.

I think the whole 'it could force the family to split' thing is ridiculous, I would prob be better of financially as a single mum but the thought of kicking my husband out has never occurred to me (not for financial reasons anyway!).

They could get rid of Sky as well. I can't believe he reckons they NEED the movies. Freeview is available ~sighs~

They have a weekly income £582 that is a lot more than many people who are working and they all have to cope. Like people have already said, fags, beer and sky are NOT essentials.

And why would you expect to live in a 'big' house if you weren't working? I find it a strange attitude when people believe they are 'entitled' to big houses, two cars etc etc times are tuff....

WTC will change to 24 hours in April too!

I was sympathetic until I read the breakdown of their spending.

24 cans of lager a week, 200 cigarettes and a large pouch of tobacco. So I went on the Tesco website to see how much this would cost them. Answer is even for the cheapest brand over £90 a week.

The benefits cap would reduce their weekly income by £82.40

So when the father says "I see eight people here having to choose between eating or heating?, he will make his family starve or freeze before the parents consider giving up smoking or drinking?

mumblechum - agreed. People in receipt of WTC are exempt from the cap I believe, so one of the two of them only needs to do 16 hours a week to solve the "problem".

Did a lot of you miss the bit where his wife has mental health problems? The chances of her giving up smoking are highly unlikely. Also maybe you didn't realise but if you are on job seekers you can't retrain or you will lose your benefit, not even night classes!