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

[thepeoplesprincess]

In the long run. For private renters anyway.

As things currently stand, private landlords are getting away with charging extortionate rents that few can afford because the shortfall is made up by Housing Benefit. So if benefits are to be capped, landlords will (hopefully) be forced to lower their rents to affordable levels or sell up if they can't find tenants that can and will pay hundreds of pounds a month. Either will be great for the average Joe IMO.

"Its the highest earners who should be the ones helping the country out of financial strife."

They already are. Who do you think pays the most in tax?

Um, sorry to disabuse you Bumbley, but they all have topflight accountants so that they don't pay it.

Vodafone owe Six billion in tax.

Six billion.

The govt let them off over lunch.

what about the families who have 4 children or more who conceived thier children whilst in work and not on benefits then through no fault of thier own find themselves on benefits. Shall we put the surplus dc in care .

I have 4 dc on benefits, didnt choose this life trust me and everysingle one of my dc were conceived whilst my circumstances were vastly different.

Hully - The top 1% of earners in the UK are contributing nearly 25% of the entire income tax in the UK.

I am that people pay £1600 a month in rent!

I pay £450 a month for a beautiful 3 bed bungalow with playroom and a garden big enough for an allotment at the bottom! Ah it's good up north! [smug face]

Which is much less than they should, and also because the vast majority of people earn so little they don't pay any or they'd starve.

completely agree witn you kelly2000

This is beginning to sound like a "how dare taxpayers want to decide how much and to whom they pay tax" thread

Well sheep, I'm sure you're one of those who will be vastly reassured by what that nice Ian Duncan Smith has to say:

Iain Duncan Smith: 'Welfare cap will not push anyone into poverty'

"For those who are doing the right thing who have fallen out of work, we will support them and make sure they get back to work.
"Councils will be able to work with certain key families who may need a little bit more time to make some changes to their circumstances while they push them through the cap and into new housing."

The whole article is here:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9032169/Iain-Duncan-Smith-launches-last-ditch-appeal-over-welfare-reforms.html

"Which is much less than they should"

There's that sense of entitlement again. "You earn a lot of money so give me some."

In a morally sound society, it will always be the case that those at the top pay more tax than those at the bottom because they have more to start with.

If someone pays 50% tax on a salary of £10,000 it is obvious they will be unable to feed themselves.

If someone pays 50% tax on a salary of £100,000 they still have double the typical salary left to live off.

I don't think people should be penalised for being rich but those who can afford it should be contributing more than those who can't are made to suffer.

We live in a capitalist, free-market society. By it's very nature it relies on wealth being held by the top 10% of society and the rest of society continuing to believe in the notion that they too could rise to that 10% of they just work hard enough. But it's not true, because that rise requires a not-inconsiderable amount of luck, contacts and opportunity (which is very dependent on money, e.g. social clubs, university fees) as well as hard work and talent. In the past we actually had greater social mobility than we have now. It's on the decline in this country.

How can you penalise people for not earning more when they aren't given the opportunity to do so in the first place?

Sorry re children you plan for their entire future not just the year they are born.

I'd have loved 4 children but knew money would be tight and when they got older we'd have 4 lots of everything to pay for.We also knew should we ever have a dip in salary or face redundancy feeding 4 children would be a lot harder so we stopped.

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

MrsHeffly. I planned for my DC (only going to have one) and I saved enough to cover the childcare costs until they started school. I had twins, my then partner tried to strangle me leaving me no choice but to leave, and so the money ran out within 18 months.

How on earth was I supposed to forsee that?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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......

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.

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.

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.

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