Benefit capping

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Who mentioned REASONABLE compromise DDD - you are introducing subjective terms to justify your position

Please.. you are trying to bait me. You either like me and my debating skills, points or perspective. Or disagree with everything I say. Those being the two reasons why you always seem to respond to me.

Anyway. To the point; yes reasonable compromise is a subjective term. But I put it to you sir that a compromise is subjective in and of itself. One would need to perceive the action as a compromise of their initial position in the first place and that, sir, is subjective. I'm just extending the notion to cover what one would perceive as reasonable or unreasonable.

Given that we are talking travel to work and to do so comfortably, also subjective. The notion of what is reasonable is entirely valid.

I don't believe I need to justify my personal position or circumstances.

When you are expecting the state to pay you to have children. Ie pay you with money earned by others, then child benefit entitlement is more than a subjective matter.

W1

Asprilla wrote:

W1 wrote:

Asprilla smells of wee wee.

For some reason I expected better.

Ah, you've unignored me.

I am touched. May you walk on rose petals daily.

asprilla

Pretty much straight after I did it. Ignoring ruins the the flow of threads and it denies me the opportunity to change my opinion.

mrc1

Personally I think one of the major issues in the London rental and buying market is the proliferation of private landlords taking advantage of the slack lending rules in the early noughties to buy up shed loads of properties. When you end up with the situation that Joe Bloggs can own 10 plus properties and have access to easy mortgages to buy them then the prices shoot up as those landlords are able to hoover up loads of properties while a "first time buyer" doesn't stand a chance.

notsoblue

Asprilla wrote:

Pretty much straight after I did it. Ignoring ruins the the flow of threads and it denies me the opportunity to change my opinion.

Also, ignoring someone means you still see that they've posted, just not the content. That "Display anyway" button is like a mouth ulcer you just can't help prodding with your tongue.

sketchley

mrc1 wrote:

Personally I think one of the major issues in the London rental and buying market is the proliferation of private landlords taking advantage of the slack lending rules in the early noughties to buy up shed loads of properties. When you end up with the situation that Joe Bloggs can own 10 plus properties and have access to easy mortgages to buy them then the prices shoot up as those landlords are able to hoover up loads of properties while a "first time buyer" doesn't stand a chance.

+1. Housing Benefit cap should go some way to sort this

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Who mentioned REASONABLE compromise DDD - you are introducing subjective terms to justify your position

Please.. you are trying to bait me. You either like me and my debating skills, points or perspective. Or disagree with everything I say. Those being the two reasons why you always seem to respond to me.

Anyway. To the point; yes reasonable compromise is a subjective term. But I put it to you sir that a compromise is subjective in and of itself. One would need to perceive the action as a compromise of their initial position in the first place and that, sir, is subjective. I'm just extending the notion to cover what one would perceive as reasonable or unreasonable.

Given that we are talking travel to work and to do so comfortably, also subjective. The notion of what is reasonable is entirely valid.

I don't believe I need to justify my personal position or circumstances.

When you are expecting the state to pay you to have children. Ie pay you with money earned by others, then child benefit entitlement is more than a subjective matter.

1. You're going off the point to state another point. One which I agree with, mostly. We are discussing whether un/reasonable conpormise is valid within the topic of the discussion. Because the compromise itself is largely subjective then the notion of what is considered reasonable for said individual is also valid.

2. The point is Spen, Child benefit is, currently, available for all while the value, use and its purpose are subjective to the individual. We are all entitled to it and despite it's purpose it's use is down to the legal guardians of the child in question. So largely, I think it isn't more than a subjective matter.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

We are all entitled to it and despite it's purpose it's use is down to the legal guardians of the child in question. So largely, I think it isn't more than a subjective matter.

I don't have any children so that's not entirely 100% correct.
FWIW a household income of 40k should mean zero benefits or credits IMHO.
Unemployed @ 26k is generous I would have thought.

TheStone

rjsterry wrote:

:shock: So if not lack of supply, what is keeping London house prices moving upward when the rest of the country is flat or falling? I mean, the lending bubble has pretty much burst now, but with little effect inside the M25

It's a good question. I have some theories.

Firstly, banking was protected through the downturn. Not just protected, but it was actually growing after the crash. This feeds into all the other high end sectors in London (law, insurance, consultancy etc) and some of the service sector. This is reversing very quickly right now.

Then there's a huge devaluation of the pound. We've more than doubled the narrow money supply to drive inflation/devaluation which has made it cheaper for foreigners to buy properties. If you were Japanese our house prices quite a bit under half what they were in 2007. If you were Greek, they're still about 30% lower.

Which leads to my final theory. Flight to safety. The UK is still seen as a secure and extremely open country. If you were Chinese, sitting on gilts or treasuries being devalued by the month, you might decide to get out of fiat cash. If you're Greek and sitting on a load of cash that you haven't paid tax on, the safest place, not in the euro is the UK. We also have basically no tax on property. The bloke who paid £150 million pound on the flat in 1 Hyde Park, pays about 1.5k/year council tax. No stamp duty.

sketchley

Interest rates are low so saving doesn't get a good return, likewise stocks and shares. However property prices are low and if you can it put down enough of a deposit to get a mortgage interest rates are low. Rents did not drop when house prices did. First time buyers cannot get on ladder without big enough deposit as cannot get mortgage therefor rental market is booming. Therefore investing in property is good move if you have the cash. This is why I'm adamant that a housing benefit cap will only effect the rich, i.e. those landlords that are artificially keeping both rent and buying prices higher than they need to be because they have cash to invest.

DonDaddyD

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

We are all entitled to it and despite it's purpose it's use is down to the legal guardians of the child in question. So largely, I think it isn't more than a subjective matter.

I don't have any children so that's not entirely 100% correct.

How is it not 100% correct? We are all entitled to child benefits. The qualifying requirement being that you are the legal guardian of a child.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

How is it not 100% correct? We are all entitled to child benefits. The qualifying requirement being that you are the legal guardian of a child.

I am not entitled as I don't have children.
People who earn a suficient amount shouldn't be entitled either.
Benefits are SUPPOSED to be a safety net, not a lifestyle.

leodis75

Kinda torn on this one. Our neighbour used to be home owners, she was popping out kids at rabbit rate but made sure she had been back at work at the minimum to get full maternity leave again, he was on the longest Uni course invented and worked part time in a call centre one day a week. They have 6 kids so far and somehow managed to pay a mortgage, own a people carrier and feed all 8 of themselves, how they did this on one average income is beyond me.

Something like this


Mrs Rabbit worked for the DSS, she knew every trick in the book and used it, she even claimed to be blind to get a blind pass which includes free train and bus travel whilst reading the Metro on her way into town!! I once overheard her in the garden given advice to someone on the phone on what key words to say to get what benefits, she was a walking Wikipedia of benefits and how to play the system. Its not nice seeing people live like that at our expense when myself and wife work are butts off to make a living.

Then you get the pensioners who couldn’t afford to save for retirement but paid full NI all their lives and get a pittance to survive on until they die, whereas in Spain the elderly get very cheap holidays every year, they get reduced Utilities and can somewhat enjoy life.

Verdict... Reduce benefits to £15k a year and increase state pensions or offer something in return for working hard all your lives and only the retired people who have paid full NI get these. Also stop payments for EU national children not living within the UK and ex pats living abroad getting the winter fuel allowance.

L

xx

Alinshearah

The Benefits Cap -" Normally found on the Jeremy Kyle Show with Adidas written on the front "

DonDaddyD

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

How is it not 100% correct? We are all entitled to child benefits. The qualifying requirement being that you are the legal guardian of a child.

I am not entitled as I don't have children.

Sigh.

As a passport carrying citizen of the UK you are ENTITLED to child benefits. At the moment you are not the legal guardian of any children so you do not, at present, qualify for this entitlement.

People who earn a suficient amount shouldn't be entitled either.
Benefits are SUPPOSED to be a safety net, not a lifestyle.

I understand this is you opinion, yes. I wasn't aware that £80 a month was enough to propel me into a different lifestyle. :roll: What it does do, however, is assure me that there is money for nappies and food for my child at the end of every month.

MaxwellBygraves

It's easy to attack the poor and the unemployed. They're an easy target. It's politics at it's worst and most ugly. Especially since they have no voice or means of fighting back. Out of our cabinet of millionaires, does anyone seriously believe they have any empathy for those who have very little? Who cares anyway, when it improves your opinion poll ratings? If you think politicians (of all parties) come across as elitist, selfish, lying and power hungry, it's because they are. Why would anyone believe what they say or expect them to have any consideration for those less off than themselves?

Remember - "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal" - Source unknown.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

I understand this is you opinion, yes. I wasn't aware that £80 a month was enough to propel me into a different lifestyle. :roll: What it does do, however, is assure me that there is money for nappies and food for my child at the end of every month.

Point being that it is 80 quid on top of what you and your partner already earn. You don't really need it do you?

It is only my opinion that people earning enough should not get benefits but that is the whole point of the planned cap.

SimonAH

But DDD, the truth is that with your income there will always be money for food and nappies - you don't actually need the CB (even though it is nice)

For most people expenditure rises to meet income, at least when you're young. You could easily find £80 a month from your current expenditure.

The reason it's not means tested (like winter heating allowance) is that it's cheaper to just pay it out to all regardless AND IT WAS BROUGHT IN LIKE THAT AS A VOTE GRABBER.

I would personally scrap both of them and re-allocate the money linked with something that is already meanstested. And free prescriptions whilst we're at it. It would be unpopular politically but far fairer.

Bear in mind BTW that my wife rather likes her monthly payments.

daviesee

Just to be clear.

Who thinks that 26k a year in your hand makes you poor?

mar_k

where did my post go?

SimonAH

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

It's easy to attack the poor and the unemployed. They're an easy target. It's politics at it's worst and most ugly. Especially since they have no voice or means of fighting back. Out of our cabinet of millionaires, does anyone seriously believe they have any empathy for those who have very little? Who cares anyway, when it improves your opinion poll ratings? If you think politicians (of all parties) come across as elitist, selfish, lying and power hungry, it's because they are. Why would anyone believe what they say or expect them to have any consideration for those less off than themselves?

Remember - "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal" - Source unknown.

This, however, is claptrap from It's to unknown.

sketchley

daviesee wrote:

Just to be clear.

Who thinks that 26k a year in your hand makes you poor?

Not me, it's 35k before tax.

Slightly different question though would on who here could run a family of 4 (2 + 2 kids) on 26k a year after tax. Assume you don't have to go to work for it so don't need to be near a place of work so you could live anywhere in the country.

I could here's my rough calculation

26k per year is £ 2166 per month

£675 a month gets me a three bed house in Sittingbourne my home town
£150 a month on utilities
£125 a month council tax
£100 a month TV, phone and internet
£100 a month HP on a cheap car
£200 petrol, car insurance and maintenance
£30 home insurance
£500 Food
£100 clothing
£186 Spare cash

mar_k

I take home less than the above and I work 10-15hour days. ( I earn just over an average wage as a basic )
Its so bloody unfair.
I honestly think that it should be possible for some one working full time on minimum wage to be taking home more than what they give out as benifit.

DonDaddyD

daviesee wrote:

[ignore the first quote]

OH so we got past the point where you keep claiming that your somehow not entitled to child benefits.... right. I'll take credit for clearing that up in your mind then. No need to thank me.

Point being that it is 80 quid on top of what you and your partner already earn.

No it's not, she's on maternity leave.

You don't really need it do you?

I believe we do. And while you might THINK you have an idea of what I earn, you have no idea of our financial commitments. So any speculation is just that. Where the facts start and stop is this.

As a British Citizen I am entitled to Child Benefit. As a parent I qualify for it. I use it as it was intended.

Any other problem you may have I'm boiling down to sour grapes.

It is only my opinion that people earning enough should not get benefits but that is the whole point of the planned cap.

No the point of the planned cap was to deincentivise benefits. So that the collective total of benefits that could be earned don't exceed an average salary.

Child benefit a universal entitlement to ensure that children get a good fair start, IMO should be exempt.

DonDaddyD

Sketchley wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Just to be clear.

Who thinks that 26k a year in your hand makes you poor?

Not me, it's 35k before tax.

Slightly different question though would on who here could run a family of 4 (2 + 2 kids) on 26k a year after tax. Assume you don't have to go to work for it so don't need to be near a place of work so you could live anywhere in the country.

I could here's my rough calculation

26k per year is £ 2166 per month

£675 a month gets me a three bed house in Sittingbourne my home town
£150 a month on utilities
£125 a month council tax
£100 a month TV, phone and internet
£100 a month HP on a cheap car
£200 petrol, car insurance and maintenance
£30 home insurance
£500 Food
£100 clothing
£186 Spare cash

I could, in London

sketchley

Personally I'd scrap the benefits system entirely, just give every man, women and child a tax credit at the start of each month via the tax system paid into your bank account to cover basic rent and a cost of living allowance. This could then be recouped from charging more tax on wages by scrapping personal allowances and increasing basic rate if necessary. This would mean someone work 1 hour a week if better off then someone working none but at the same time they've paid some tax to reduce there burden on the state. The more you work the better off you are and more tax you pay back. You then hit a point when you pay back more than you receive. No need for a benefits system or any complicated rules or caps job done. Next thing I'd do is introduce flat tax for all the same reason.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

OH so we got past the point where you keep claiming that your somehow not entitled to child benefits.... right. I'll take credit for clearing that up in your mind then. No need to thank me.
...................
No it's not, she's on maternity leave.
.........
I believe we do. And while you might THINK you have an idea of what I earn, you have no idea of our financial commitments. So any speculation is just that. Where the facts start and stop is this.

As a British Citizen I am entitled to Child Benefit. As a parent I qualify for it. I use it as it was intended.

Any other problem you may have I'm boiling down to sour grapes.

..........
No the point of the planned cap was to deincentivise benefits. So that the collective total of benefits that could be earned don't exceed an average salary.

Child benefit a universal entitlement to ensure that children get a good fair start, IMO should be exempt.

I don't have children = I am not entitled to CB. I am not thanking you.
It is on top of your salary and your wife's maternity pay.
No you don't need it. Your financial commitments are based on your lifestyle choice. Based on other posts here, your earnings mean that you could choose different options.
You are entitled to it but should you? That would be my question. Do you have a seperate bank account and budget to verify that you use it as intended? I assume that you pay for things out of the same pot. And could continue to do so if CB was cut.
Fair point on the benefits but it's the same moral arguement.
Plenty children in this Country would get a fair start without CB.

The Rookie

DonDaddyD wrote:

We are all entitled to it and despite it's purpose it's use is down to the legal guardians of the child in question. So largely, I think it isn't more than a subjective matter.

I hate that word, entitled, like some god given right, it's a benefit to give or withdraw and the whim of the democratically elected gov't.

For what it is worth, I favour the approach used by the US, was started under Clinton, benefits (only given to the unemployed) were limited to 2 children OR the number you had when the cap was introduced, after that you could have more if you wanted, but the state wasn't paying, that way peiople with loads of kids don't have the kids suffering (well no more than they do now as many seem to smoke or drink the 'child benefit') unless the parents make a choice to have more.

£26K is a LOT of money, before tax and NI your looking at about £35K gross, more than the average working wage, and more than many hard working decent honest families with both adults in work, it's not right to tax them to pay those 'playing the system' (through active or passive choice).

Simon

W1

SimonAH wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

It's easy to attack the poor and the unemployed. They're an easy target. It's politics at it's worst and most ugly. Especially since they have no voice or means of fighting back. Out of our cabinet of millionaires, does anyone seriously believe they have any empathy for those who have very little? Who cares anyway, when it improves your opinion poll ratings? If you think politicians (of all parties) come across as elitist, selfish, lying and power hungry, it's because they are. Why would anyone believe what they say or expect them to have any consideration for those less off than themselves?

Remember - "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal" - Source unknown.

This, however, is claptrap from It's to unknown.

What a surprise - no rational, considered arguments - just envious hyperbole.

jds_1981

SimonAH wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

It's easy to attack the poor and the unemployed. They're an easy target. It's politics at it's worst and most ugly. Especially since they have no voice or means of fighting back. Out of our cabinet of millionaires, does anyone seriously believe they have any empathy for those who have very little? Who cares anyway, when it improves your opinion poll ratings? If you think politicians (of all parties) come across as elitist, selfish, lying and power hungry, it's because they are. Why would anyone believe what they say or expect them to have any consideration for those less off than themselves?

Remember - "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal" - Source unknown.

This, however, is claptrap from It's to unknown.

Entirely.

Especially since they have no voice or means of fighting back.

Load of crap. They have votes. They have charities lobbying, plenty of leftwing press, they have MPs and I'd suggest that the unemployed have more free time to go and see their representatives on workshop days.