Whilst I am fully behind the outrage at cancer sufferers having their benfits time limited, I am not sure why people are arguing against the £26k cap. I am a graduate who has worked all my life, I have a wife n three kids, and I still earn less than the £35k that this equates to. Why should my taxes go to support people who do not work, at a higher standard than I can enjoy myself? £35k is not poverty, in anyone's book.

The point that needs to be made is that capitalism should benefit the employee and not just the shareholder.

It used to be like that. The balance got lost somewhere when it became possible to make a fortune off a companies increasing share price rather than sharing the profits it actually made.

This is a big reason we see irresponsible capitalism whereby companies get sold because the share price has gone up (partly due to takeover speculation) and hang the the consequence to the employees. It also means money is made not by producing stuff but off the increasing value of the shares. You would think shares would not increase in price without a sound basis for the business but speculation sees high values attached to companies that even make a loss.

Another point to make is that capitalism ceases to generate gainful employment and tax revenue when it strays into profiteering territory. By this I mean vast profits from companies are no good if the employees are exploited and taxes are avoided (even if legal mechanisms exist to do both).

It really ought not to be that hard to get these two points across and also come up with polices that aim to deal with these two issues. It also ought to be possible to get this across to the greedy or stupid that they are going to be better off if these issues could be tackled. Stopping Philip Green avoiding paying income tax and companies from avoiding paying corporation tax ought not to be a difficult sell.

Simple. It's a political move not one that is supposed to make anything fairer or even save that much money (about £300 million is a pee in the ocean). They have chosen "the average salary" to make it popular to people like you. For a start what the f**k does "average salary" mean in the UK? It varies from area to area wildly, for example it's being able to afford rent on a 4 bed house in Durham, or a studio flat in London, and this is the big component of these higher benefits - keeping people housed. It makes no sense.
I would rather see kids housed (and many people with kids will lose their homes) than worry about their benefits being slightly over an arbitary number pulled out of the air to suit a political purpose. The benefit system needs to be flexiblle and it needs to be fair on the people it's there to protect.

The cap won't save you or me any money personaly, I won't suddenly see extra salary through tax cuts and I won't see any services improving. So, do you really want to see kids put out on the street becuase you feel envious of people on benefits, many of whom are victims of the total lack of growth in our economy? Would you rather be on benefits than have a job? And are you willing to accept that with unemployment rising to record 15 year highs that if you lose your job you and your kids, instead of being given time to sort something out, would find yourself on the street?

Not surprising that you've swallowed the tory rhetoric hook, line & sinker

One way to cut the benefits bill would be to only allow State welfare, housing benefits, health care to those born in the UK, those who have lived and worked here for 16 consecutive years, those who have been "invited" here as refugees from distaster, etc and those from countries with reciprocal arrangements of equivalent generosity for UK people residing there (eg EU countries).

That would seem fair, reasonable and popular to me.

The only people you appear to have missed out are illegal immigrants (who can't claim benefits anyway) and those awaiting grant of entry/deportation.

As you say, it would be hugely popular, especially among the Dally Wail & express readers, it would also save about 4/5th of buggerall in the greater scheme of things.

I'd hazard a guess that those on such a high amount of benefits are on them due to certain circumstances and are in a small minority. I would also guess a big chunk of such high benefits is due to housing benefit which is paid at the level it is because rents are sky high in certain areas.

What I am trying to say is if the costs were not high in the first place then the benefits required to cover the cost would not need to be so great.

And also such people who are claiming over £26K are a small minority used (effectively it seems) to justify the entire policy of cutting all benefits even to cancer sufferers.

This government are true masters of divide and conquer. From the post man paying students Uni fees to Mr Average getting less than benefits claimants they are easily winning the argument because people accept the sound bite and do not look any deeper (and the opposition does not help them see through these policies either).

Instead of cutting benefits by introducing some arbitrary cut off why not reduce the cost so less needs to be claimed?

The slow death of social housing providing cheap rental accommodation since Thatcher made it that council houses could be sold and since successive governments both Labour and Tory did not allow councils to reinvest the money in new builds is a big reason why the housing benefit bill is so high.

It would not be very "Tory" for the state to provide housing for its people though would it? Even though the market forces that apply because we don't are costing us a fortune. Provided the landlords can get their rents that is OK.

No, what we do instead is just say £26K is too much and tell people to move (as if this is a trivial matter and even possible) and use it as smoke screen to reduce benefits to vulnerable people who are no where near on £26K of benefits.

50,000 claimants nationwide.


Just to underline this, it's about £20bn in housing benefit and Thatchers sell-off (dressed up as an opportunity, "a right to buy" but in reality a dogma-driven initiative, they just don't like social housing) pushed a lot of it into the pockets of private landlords.
So we have a Conservative government punishing low-income people for what a previous Conservative government put in place.

It is also immoral that they refuse to excude child benefit from the total allowable. Why should family 'A' be penalised simply because they have more children than family 'B'?

But it's all OK because Chris Graying says "they can move". So they GET MOVED (social engineering anyone?) to an area of cheaper housing that will undeoubtedly have fewer job opportunities.

Another well thought out tory-bastad plan

Why should we pay people to have kids? If people can't afford to support their children, they should not have them.

Ooooh you will be popular with Standee. I didn't expect you to sink any lower but you surprise even me with the total stupidity of that right-wing soundbite.

Explain why it's stupid.

You DO realise that money isn't magically created don't you?

You DO realise that anything the government spends isn't "their" money, rather it's extracted from us (taxpayers)?

Exactly, so why should money be extracted from the taxpayer to pay over £26k of expenses for a bureaucrat like Ian Duncan Smith?

Just because "its not fraud" doesn't mean it's right?

There are plenty of benefit claimants rolling in £30k or more, and they aren't committing fraud. Does this mean it's right?

Pay IDS his salary of £135k or whatever and he can live off that. If he needs some other absolute necessities to carry out his job then there may be a role for taxpayer subsidy but I don't see why that needs to be in excess of £26k.

It's about time we start thinking about the productive sector of the economy (ie entrepreneurs, small business owners) and the hard working man and woman in the street rather than a privileged set of people in "government" thinking that taxes are there to subsidise their lifestyles of luxury.

I could be wrong but I am pretty sure that the expenses over £26k are used to pay his staff.

Failing this I have no idea about the breakdown of IDS's expenses. Maybe you could ask him.

I agree 100% with your next paragraph. In fact this is why I end up supporting the Conservatives. Whilst I am pretty fed up of all politicians, at least they agree with this. Labour generally support "big government". They like spending other peoples money.