Most people recognise that the system isn't working, and this is reflected by the fact the majority are in favour of welfare reform.

You got a link to back that up?

I don't necessarily disagree, but you need to back up statements about what you claim the "majority" wnat.

£8580 per annum paid direct to the landlord.

£4524 per annum paid as child benefit, a non means tested benefit that every parent in the country gets, even David Cameron.

£15024 per annum paid as child tax credit, a benefit which at that level is income based and not contributory, the actual figure dependant on the number of under 16s or under 18s in full time education living at the property in the parental care of the claimant, a figure that is carefully calculated according to stringent rules and not just handed out willy-nilly as anyone who has ever claimed it will confirm.

The Mail claim that she gets £303 a month in income support which cannot be correct as this is paid at a maximum of £56 per week, income support is for those exceptional circumstances when a person or family are literally living below the poverty line, you have to be working less than 16 hours per week (or not at all), pregnant or a carer or a single parent with a child under 5, and have no other source of earned income, it can be claimed by the homeless, you do not qualify if you are claiming job seekers allowance - in other words its for the destitute and those who cannot work through circumstances other than disability and its the claiming of income support that then entitles you to the full rate of income based child tax credits.


So she starts off with no income and no support from her estranged husband, the state pays for her rent after she is evicted from her own house and because with young children she is a priority for social housing, and then gives her £56 a week income support which then entitles her to the child tax credit, the child benefit is paid as a matter of course whether she was a millionaire or penniless.

She does herself no favours by claiming that she can't survive on less but even so I can see that it would be a challenge to raise seven children on £1900 a month, its do-able though.

The proposed cap of £26k will remove £5000 straight out of the household cash budget because I don't suppose for one minute that the landlord will agree to shoulder some of that reduction, so £1400 a month to raise seven children and pay all of the utility bills etc etc (bear in mind that the house will be occupied right through the day with a young child and will need heating in the winter), its probably pitched at a level that most would think reasonable but it will be tight.

I think he may mean the majority of right-wing nutjobs and those too thick to see behind the Wail and Sun's agendas

I'd additionally ask what someone means by "isn't working".

In what way? How would they change it? etc – not least when we have such high levels of unemployment and underemployment.

No, I mean ordinary right thinking members of society.

Quote: Chris28 "You got a link to back that up? I don't necessarily disagree, but you need to back up statements about what you claim the "majority" wnat.'" I have had this exact same discussion with Kosh a few weeks ago. There are multiple opinion polls out there suggesting general support for welfare reform. The few posters on this forum who oppose welfare reform do so mainly for two reasons 1. An inherent hatred of the Conservative party and all reforms they attempt or 2. They are ideologically opposed to any reform of the welfare state because they are socialist leaning. Some are both. This article puts it very nicely. blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... and-right/

Quote: Chris28 "You got a link to back that up? I don't necessarily disagree, but you need to back up statements about what you claim the "majority" wnat.'" I have had this exact same discussion with Kosh a few weeks ago. There are multiple opinion polls out there suggesting general support for welfare reform. The few posters on this forum who oppose welfare reform do so mainly for two reasons 1. An inherent hatred of the Conservative party and all reforms they attempt or 2. They are ideologically opposed to any reform of the welfare state because they are socialist leaning. Some are both. This article puts it very nicely. blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... and-right/

Oh FFS don't start with polls again.

What an earth are you on about? Have you read anything I have just posted?

He even said words to the effect of 'I haven't disputed it'. I'll find his exact quote if you like really insist I trawl through old posts.

Or 3. They hate to see a welfare system that is in its third generation of supporting the weakest, most disadvantaged, the disabled, the sick and those fallen on hard times, ruined and torn asunder by political dogma and without opposition, worse still being justified by highlighting the extremes of bad use of welfare in order to justify punishing the vast majority for having the audacity to ask for help, its the sign of a truly civilised country when assistance is available to all - social help does not automatically equate to socialism and its not something to be politically afraid of as if your party should not support it, cutting social assistance whilst at the same time making private company profits from the cutting is despicable, truly despicable.

I'm on about you posting stuff without any back up. Again. I read exactly what you posted too

In fact the vast majority if people don't agree with welfare reform in the way it is happening. There, I've done it too

Nothing is being 'torn asunder' so maybe you should calm it with the sensationalist propaganda that you so often accuse me of.

Once again your post seems to suggest that I and other are opposed to the welfare state period. "its the sign of a truly civilised country when assistance is available to all". Not the case.

Given that the "Benefit Cap" is now being rolled out to all local authorities with the much-touted figure of £26k in total per annum, how long will it be before a family on the maximum figure suffer a death in that family group and then realise that the Bereavement Allowance is also included in that maximum figure and you won't be granted it ?

As well as having eager hacks sharpening their pencils for the first housing evictions under the "bedroom tax" rules, they are going to be standing in line around mortuary doors soon waiting for the first unemployed single parent to not have the means to bury a child or parent.

I suppose its progress though...

You don't think that the rights of disabled people are being "torn asunder" ?

You don't think that housing benefit payment rules are being "torn asunder" with a completely out-of-the-blue never-even-hinted-at rule on the number of spare bedrooms and subsequent penalties for having one or for not following government guidance on which of your children should be sleeping in which room ?

You don't think that the long established rules on which benefits and how much you can claim are being "torn asunder" by a randomly placed Benefits Cap which effectively draws a red pen through years worth of benefits legislation saying "I know we carefully calculated this before but now we're just paying you this random figure instead".




Not the case ?

You don't think that a civilised country should help its disadvantaged ?

At all, or just a bit, or just enough so that they don't storm the suburbs or beg on the streets outside your office, or just die inconveniently in your way ?


What counts as a civilised country in your mind ?