Bishops block the benefits cap.

[Ken L]

If UK LAW states a family of 3 needs £331 pw net in benefits to survive then why is Government not ensuring wages are set to the same scale?

 

So if that same UK law sees a family who have never worked and have no intention of working pump out 13 kids, you are presumably happy with a situation were the state ends up paying them ten times your £331.00 a week - more than they could ever hope to earn legitimately.

 

If your family of three are happy on £331, are you happy that they should receive that indefinitely, at the expense of ordinary working families?

 

You seem to have rather missed the point of globalization. It's not just about cheap Chinese made stuff. It's about being able to compete. In a country where your health care is paid for, you have a financial safety net in the form of a benefits system and you reap the benefits of cheap imports, it's rather disingenuous to complain of being paid "crumbs".

I know people abroad who work 18 hour days for a meal and barely enough cash to live on.

 

Steve. I wasn't certain what you meant but I have heard the abolition of the second house proposed many times so even though that's not what you were suggesting, it was worth addressing.

I really don't like the idea of a second chamber that's directly elected and that goes double if the elections were are the same time as parliamentary elections.

I do think it needs to be codified though with the hereditary peers and bishops out and perhaps a proportion of it directly elected, a proportion elevated from the commons and a proportion nominated by the previous government and opposition from science, industry, education or whatever.

All should have limited tenure too but you'd need to manage the turnover.

 

BTW Cory, That's a nice subtle anti-SOPA thing you have there.

[big_cod]

How do you set a time limit when we are on the verge of meltdown? No matter how they paint it we are close to global depression.

 

 

Hammer the benefits guys. Don't stand there and ask for better wages. Just wouldn't be British.

 

The worker in the UK gets paid mere crumbs.

 

Just look at how they treat pensioners too....they paid their taxes, they have already paid their NI.

They have paid for their care in old age yet they must pay again. How is that fair?

Remember your are all going to be pensioners soon. The only reason they have raised the retirement age is because they know that given current UK conditions most people will be dead long before they draw their pension.

 

People should really dump the blinkers.

 

If UK LAW states a family of 3 needs £331 pw net in benefits to survive then why is Government not ensuring wages are set to the same scale? Cannot afford it my backside....£3,000,000 bonus for upshot sh*t and everyone else gets nothing.

 

The reason it doesn't do this is because nobody dare stand up. We do not fight together for better as we fight each other.

So cap all the benefits, target the weak and then when YOU need them yourself they will be gone.

But hey, you don't need it now do you.

 

No wonder the man on the street is downtrodden.

 

Well said the south seems to struggle on work can be fairly easy to find but up north its a different matter you have osborn shouting about people getting jobs which jobs are these he is in a dream world completly out of touch of reality take the young kids in rochdale 1 in 5 out of work thats very bad i feel so sorry for the younger generation these days they have it hard but the goverment doesnt help at least not this one its all on its way back to the 80ss.

 

http://menmedia.co.uk/rochdaleobserver/new...le-left-jobless

 

paul.

Edited January 25, 2012 by big_cod

[Now there's a right un.]

So if that same UK law sees a family who have never worked and have no intention of working pump out 13 kids, you are presumably happy with a situation were the state ends up paying them ten times your £331.00 a week - more than they could ever hope to earn legitimately.

 

If your family of three are happy on £331, are you happy that they should receive that indefinitely, at the expense of ordinary working families?

 

You seem to have rather missed the point of globalization. It's not just about cheap Chinese made stuff. It's about being able to compete. In a country where your health care is paid for, you have a financial safety net in the form of a benefits system and you reap the benefits of cheap imports, it's rather disingenuous to complain of being paid "crumbs".

I know people abroad who work 18 hour days for a meal and barely enough cash to live on.

 

Steve. I wasn't certain what you meant but I have heard the abolition of the second house proposed many times so even though that's not what you were suggesting, it was worth addressing.

I really don't like the idea of a second chamber that's directly elected and that goes double if the elections were are the same time as parliamentary elections.

I do think it needs to be codified though with the hereditary peers and bishops out and perhaps a proportion of it directly elected, a proportion elevated from the commons and a proportion nominated by the previous government and opposition from science, industry, education or whatever.

All should have limited tenure too but you'd need to manage the turnover.

 

BTW Cory, That's a nice subtle anti-SOPA thing you have there.

 

 

 

 

Read my first post:

 

A guy who has time to pump out 13 kids should be in work..no doubt about it....scroungers need to be rooted out...no doubt about it...false claimants need to be removed...no doubt about it.

 

But this blanket cap will hit all not just the scroungers. I hate scroungers but this cap does not allow for those who are genuine.

 

I am happy to see a man who has worked most of his life get benefit if he needs it.

He has already paid for it through National Insurance. HE HAS PAID FOR THE PROVISION HIMSELF. People need to remember that.

This bull about your taxes etc etc is codswallop...it is your National Insurance that pays for your benefit.

 

It also pays for your medical care too.

 

The minute Government takes NI they are obligated by contract to provide income for you for illness, disability or enforced unemployment. It seems government is trying to rewrite the contract on their own without regard for all parties of the contract.

That would be illegal if attempted by a mainstream insurer.

 

People don't research for themselves and like Sheep listen to others. A lie said often enough will eventually be accepted as truth.

 

IT IS WAGES THAT NEED TO RISE. IF YOU DON'T EARN WHAT LAW SAYS IS THE MINIMUM YOU NEED TO LIVE ON WHY AREN'T YOU QUESTIONING THAT? I'll tell you why..it is because people would rather attack those who cannot defend themselves instead of demanding a fairer share for themselves.

 

Oh and I am a disabled Man who gets paid through my National Insurance contributions.

INSURANCE...against Illness, Disability etc etc.

I get no free healthcare because I AM NOT INCOME SUPPORT and I still pay Income Tax on what I receive.

Bet you didn't realise that did you.

I paid for my provision through 14 years of continuous employment so I do understand what they are trying to enforce.

 

Oh and the Peers do much to soften legislation that could potentially make our lives misery.

Fancy going back to Victorian standards do you?

[Steve Walker]

Now There's, could you list the circumstances in which you think it is right that a household should get more than 26,000 a year in benefits?

[Alan Stubbs]

Make no mistake that a lot of people living on benefits are seriously short of a bob but equally there are some on a nice little earner - especially when the landlord is a family member and silly amounts of housing benefit are involved.

It strikes me that plans to put a cap on the amount of benefit that can be paid to families were eminently sensible but they appear to have been scuppered in the lords as a result of the bishops saying neh.

 

What do we think of unelected clergymen having a say in the political process of our parliamentary democracy ?

 

There's no harm in bishops having a say, we don't have to listen. The C of E has offered such poor leadership over the last 45 years or so it amazes me that people still listen.

They're talking about not capping benefits at £26k, which isn't a surprise as the maximum stipend for a vicar is £22,000.

[Steve Walker]

They're talking about not capping benefits at £26k, which isn't a surprise as the maximum stipend for a vicar is £22,000.

 

Which would be £17,322 after tax and national insurance.

 

Although, as I understand it, if an official house is provided it isn't a taxable benefit, and there is a tax loophole available which allows the costs of heating, lighting, cleaning and garden upkeep to be claimed tax and NI free.

[Now there's a right un.]

Now There's, could you list the circumstances in which you think it is right that a household should get more than 26,000 a year in benefits?

 

 

 

This cap will include all benefits. Council Tax, Housing Benefit and Child Benefit if they can get it through...etc etc.

 

 

Okay here is an example.

 

An employee who works for most of his life with a family of 4 suddenly loses his job...if the Law states he need £26k a year to live then as he has paid his Taxes and NI why shouldn't he have it? He has paid for the provision has he not?

Unless you agree that contracts are binding for Insurance until a payout is required then the Insurer does as he sees fit.

 

 

 

You are missing the point however.

The question should be asked as to why wages do not meet, in many cases, what Law states is the minimum needed for a decent existence.

 

Most manual workers in my area earn £13-£15k per year Gross. Isn't that below what Law states is the minimum needed?

 

It isn't something that needs great brain power to figure.

Government is trying to cap benefits set by law to make **** poor wages look good.

 

 

Remember this also. You may not need benefits now and only see the media headlines detailing the small percentage of freeloaders but what of the genuine majority? Is it fair on them?

Remember also that this change is only the start and when YOU find yourself in hardship after working so hard for many years you will find a safety net that is not so secure.

 

Imagine that YOU, after say 14 years of solid employment, suddenly become ill, disabled or redundant. Would you not expect a liveable benefit after years of Tax and NI contributions? Or do you accept that you get what you're given even if it is not sufficient?

 

Think hard before you answer and harder still before you condemn those today WHO ARE NOT THE SCROUNGERS.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Now there's a right un.

[Steve Walker]

I know damn well that I would get next to nothing. That's just the way it is, my wife and I will have to look after each other or lose our house. This cap won't change that either way, we would never qualify to get high benefit payments because we don't have kids and we own our own home.

 

So who is it that is getting this sort of money at the moment and won't get it in future? Two sorts of people - people with very large families, people living in very expensive rented houses. You've already said that you don't think people with very large families should get it. That just leaves people in very expensive rented houses - why should they get to live there when workers can't afford to?

 

The law doesn't, as far as I know, state what is needed for a decent existence. Various charities and political groups do, and they base it on some notional % of average income.

[Steve Walker]

This bull about your taxes etc etc is codswallop...it is your National Insurance that pays for your benefit.

 

This is out of date now, things are even worse, but just to give you a flavour of the reality of the situation:

 

 

You will note that "Social Protection" is bigger than National Insurance - in fact, it is bigger than Income Tax. National Insurance doesn't even pay for the NHS.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Steve Walker

[big_cod]

This is out of date now, things are even worse, but just to give you a flavour of the reality of the situation:

 

 

You will note that "Social Protection" is bigger than National Insurance - in fact, it is bigger than Income Tax. National Insurance doesn't even pay for the NHS.

 

 

Looks like its even gonna get worse than what it is now steve keep laying people off less tax recipts £1 trillion borrowing a new record under this goverment the benefit thing is just a massive smokescreen plan A aint working but they wont admit it ijust hope osborn and cameron get what they desrve in the next election the biggist kick up there backsides this country has ever seen and oh sorry forgot about hansley everybody telling him he is infact wasteing public money not saving it but again he wont listen pick headed comes to mind.

 

paul.

Edited January 25, 2012 by big_cod