Is this really what people want?

I've just read in the news that the government have got £1.3bn to hand out in compensation for the new train line.

Oh there's money alright. Just not for the poor.

And you think we can support everyone? The maths say otherwise.

That's what I said moon! I said LL would say that 10% is VERY GOOD.

That's the million dollar question isn't it mcmoon. Who do you support and who do you not. And there's no easy answer there. If there was, I'm sure the govt would do it. It's not about specific groups. For example I know someone who lost an arm in an accident. He's struggling with pain constantly. Clearly he needs support. A colleague of mine also has one arm. He can work and is a highly paid project manager. Two people with very different needs. It would therefore be ridiculous for me to say "Oh we don't support people when they can work with one arm!"

My father is registered blind. He doesn't recognise me until I speak to him. Should he work? Actually he does. He runs a very successful restaurant. But do I think all blind people should be working? Of course not.

I'm glad I don't have to draw the line but the line has to be drawn. We can't support everyone so unfortunately the simple fact is that someone must choose. And each time a choice is made, people moan how unfair it is.

McMoon, I think you are confusing cost versus profit. A landlord doesn't just 'pocket' £20k and skips off to the bank for doing nothing. If it really was that easy why don't you do it?

There's all sorts of costs such as repairs, insurance, certificates, agent fees, legals and that's before having to make sure you've enough to cover void periods and not forgetting actually paying the bank back.

Do some research, ask landlords, work it out for yourself. Most landlords would consider 10% gross profit to be very good. Most are barely breaking even monthly and their sole business plan is that in x years time their house has gone up in value so they can sell it then. In the past it seemed like a no brainer that it would.....not so sure now.

Mcmooncup is right. You have to look after the vulnerable

I agree. I completely agree. That's why I said earlier that we shouldn't have a blanket ban on HB for under 25's because of exactly that reason.

But we only have so much money right? So we must define who it is we support. And that's the hardest part. Who do we say is vulnerable enough to qualify for state support and who is not.

And that's the crux of my argument. It's not that we scrap the whole thing. Clearly that would be bonkers. But when money is running out and our kids are getting forever in more debt because of policies we are proposing which they have no say over. We must be strict over who is supported and who is not.

As taxpayers, we only have two choices.

If the tax rate was very low say 20% then I'd be certainly with you. And say that there is more scope for a tax rise. But it's not. It was until recently 50%. That's no longer a fair tax rate at all and discourages people from working. And it's the rich workers who actually pay the taxes. If you discourage them, everyone suffers in the long run.

If housing is expensive where you live slum it out where I live instead. I cannot afford to live in Central London so I don't see why benefits claimants should be kept in those areas. I mvoed hundreds of miles away from family for work don't see why others should not and of course they will if that is the only way to eat

How do you square this with your previous comments about young people staying at home and being supported by their parents.

I think we need a massive shift from state responsibility to family responsibility Why can't she live with you

If young people or indeed poor vulnerable people who have no capital or assets have to now move to find work, work for the minimum wage or less.....how will they pay their rent? and you what? propose doing away with HB because greedy landlords and greedy land owners prevent YOU from living in central London.

Your opinions are very badly thought out, no wonder the country is up shit creak, the commons is stacked full of lawyers.

Landlords make paltry profits - not much more than building society interest if they kept the money in the bank and given the capital value may well be going down they are perhaps not even entrepreneurs.

We could ban housing benefit being paid to the private sector. We coudl abolish housing benefits. Lots of options.

If housing is expensive where you live slum it out where I live instead. I cannot afford to live in Central London so I don't see why benefits claimants should be kept in those areas. I mvoed hundreds of miles away from family for work don't see why others should not and of course they will if that is the only way to eat

Oh please!

Certainly most women are pretty anti army and defence spending. However there are cuts being made to defence anyway.

Scotland of course if it votes yes will be able to decide all these things differently if it chooses and indeed retain child benefit for all if it can afford it.

But of course, we have plenty of money for foreign wars, foreign aid, rents for MPs on London properties when they own other properties in London as it is, etc.

The bottom line is that the money is not there and the more you increase tax the less tax is generated (peversely). Any "cuts" (and by the way the basic benefits are not cut, they have increase by inflation something hard working workers have not currently had at all) are minimal. Capping housing benefit at £20,800 just illustrates how generous we had become. If housing is expensive where you live slum it out where I live instead. I cannot afford to live in Central London so I don't see why benefits claimants should be kept in those areas. I mvoed hundreds of miles away from family for work don't see why others should not and of course they will if that is the only way to eat.

Hence why all the long complicated sentences sprinkled with bullshit bingo which frankly are just designed to confuse your average reader into thinking you must know better

Firstly, I do not use long or complicated sentences, I don't wish to confuse you but it would seem that even very basic theory does.

Anyway did you read the UMAS? NO thought not.

Do I agree cuts are inevitable.....yes I do, do I think this will harm capitalism.....yes I do.....rather than take my word for it read the UMAS paper. Inevitable does not = right.

Do I believe in Robin Hood......no it is far too simplistic and I agree that making our country inhospitable to investment would be wrong.

Do I vote labour

I do not see why benefits claimants have had increases over the last few years when hard working people have not had pay rises. Why is that justified? Why featherbed the idle at the expense of hard workers who have seen no inflation increases and indeed often pay cuts in order to keep jobs

Xenia you are directing your ire at the wrong people. Take for example the argument over public V private pensions and the common misconception that public sector pensions are too generous at tax payers expense. If a private or public pension is generous then a person would have no recourse to claim pension credits, no need to take winter fuel, help with travel costs, free state domiciliary care, HB or any other means tested/untested benefit to supplement income in retirement. A generous public sector pension is neutral. If private pensions fail to deliver at workers expense it is the fault of the fund holders, take it up with them. The same can be said of stagnating wages in the private sector, if wages fall, take your concern to those who are responsible. Direct your ire at the corporations that impose cuts and wage stagnation and inflation, a shrinking state and the rising tide of unemployed.

Cheekymonk and mcmooncup - great posts, thank you. What you describe is horrible, but it rings very true.

NIceguy - I don't think anyone is saying 'no cuts at all' on here. Mcmooncup is right. You have to look after the vulnerable, because if you don't, we are all worse off in the end. What do you think is going to happen to these people? Where do they go when they leave the Benefits office? They are going to end up costing us (you) money one way or another, and far better to give them what they need at an earlier stage than scrape them and their families up off the road later.

As taxpayers, we only have two choices. We pay for them to have a decent life and to at least give them the chance to bring their kids up to be net contributors to our society, or we put the problem off till tomorrow and land our own kids with huge benefit bills that they will need to pay to clear up the mess we are making now.

You are a business man. You should know this!