Benefit capping

notsoblue

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.

Ignoring the bits about politicians being power hungry, selfish and lying, what specifically you think is claptrap about the above?

DonDaddyD

daviesee wrote:

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.

At present you do not qualify for it. You are however entitled to it. The wording is key.

Entitlement is determined by the fact that you are a tax paying, registerd citizen of this Country.

Whether you qualify is determined by the set criteria needed to make the claim. In this case being a legal guardian of a child. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/sta ... ualify.htm

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.

Whether my financial commitments are or were based on previous lifestyle choices doesn't negate the fact that I currently may or may not need child benefit. Again you are making an assumption you cannot substantiate.

You are entitled to it but should you? That would be my question.

It is one I am not required to answer. The fact of the matter is this. I am entitled to Child benefit, I qualify for it. I claim and use it as it is intended. Until the law states otherwise I am not abusing that which I can legally and lawfully claim.

Plenty children in this Country would get a fair start without CB.

In your opinion.

DonDaddyD

The Beginner 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 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.

At present, those living in this Country are entitled to claim Child benefits - I believe you need to be a UK citizen.

Regardless (I've said this many times now) of whether it is a benefit or whether the Government can choose to give or withdraw. At present we (those of us who are citizens are entitled) to claim child benefits as long as we qualify for it.

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.

That places a higher value on the first two kids and I feel is morally wrong. Would you tell Bassjunkie that he couldn't or shouldn't have child number 3,4,5 and 6 because they weren't financially viable for the British tax payers? Go on send him a PM. :twisted:

£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).

Anything over £2000 per month is very good IMO.

daviesee

Right. I am done now.
Here goes.

The benefit system was set up, and is still intended, to be a safety net.

Anything above a 26k limit is well in excess what I would consider to be a safety net.

26k is not poor.

Anything more than that is just spouting, mis-direction and pontificating, of which I am more than culpable.

Over and out.

sketchley

There was one good point in the lords debate last night though.

Currently child benefit is a universal benefit. With a cap on benefits a family getting £26k has their child benefit stopped but a family on £100k a year still gets theirs. This is not an argument against a cap just a comment that this part isn't fair. That being said means testing child benefit would solve that problem.

SimonAH

notsoblue wrote:

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.

Ignoring the bits about politicians being power hungry, selfish and lying, what specifically you think is claptrap about the above?

In bold. The quotation was from Emma Goldman

W1

Sketchley wrote:

There was one good point in the lords debate last night though.

Currently child benefit is a universal benefit. With a cap on benefits a family getting £26k has their child benefit stopped but a family on £100k a year still gets theirs. This is not an argument against a cap just a comment that this part isn't fair. That being said means testing child benefit would solve that problem.

If, by means testing, it didn't simply end up costing more than a universal benefit - which it might.

W1

daviesee wrote:

Right. I am done now.
Here goes.

The benefit system was set up, and is still intended, to be a safety net.

Anything above a 26k limit is well in excess what I would consider to be a safety net.

26k is not poor.

Anything more than that is just spouting, mis-direction and pontificating, of which I am more than culpable.

Over and out.

Indeed. "Poor" is a very loosely defined word it seems.

TheStone

Sketchley wrote:

There was one good point in the lords debate last night though.

Currently child benefit is a universal benefit. With a cap on benefits a family getting £26k has their child benefit stopped but a family on £100k a year still gets theirs. This is not an argument against a cap just a comment that this part isn't fair. That being said means testing child benefit would solve that problem.

Don't means test it, just scrap it.

If it keeps everyone happy, instead of having a blanket 26k cap, why not make it something like:
1st Adult - 9k
2nd Adult - 7k
1st Boy - 3k
1st Girl - 3k
Other Children - 2k/each

In fact, why not scrap everything and just make that the benefit. Use it how you want.
If you earn less than that, after tax, then you get paid the difference.

sketchley

TheStone wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

There was one good point in the lords debate last night though.

Currently child benefit is a universal benefit. With a cap on benefits a family getting £26k has their child benefit stopped but a family on £100k a year still gets theirs. This is not an argument against a cap just a comment that this part isn't fair. That being said means testing child benefit would solve that problem.

Don't means test it, just scrap it.

If it keeps everyone happy, instead of having a blanket 26k cap, why not make it something like:
1st Adult - 9k
2nd Adult - 7k
1st Boy - 3k
1st Girl - 3k
Other Children - 2k/each

In fact, why not scrap everything and just make that the benefit. Use it how you want.
If you earn less than that, after tax, then you get paid the difference.

Be careful with that it's been done and has a major pitfall. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speenhamland_system

Finally my GCSE in History has come to some use.....

notsoblue

SimonAH wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Ignoring the bits about politicians being power hungry, selfish and lying, what specifically you think is claptrap about the above?

In bold. The quotation was from Emma Goldman

Awww, don't be like that. Threads are more interesting if you explain why you disagree with someone rather than just being dismissive. I mean the gist of what he said was "Poor people aren't as politically engaged as others", I agree with that. I'm interested to know why you think otherwise?

TheStone

Sketchley wrote:

Be careful with that it's been done and has a major pitfall. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speenhamland_system

Finally my GCSE in History has come to some use.....

Great link, but isn't that kind of what we have now anyway?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Ignoring the bits about politicians being power hungry, selfish and lying, what specifically you think is claptrap about the above?

In bold. The quotation was from Emma Goldman

Awww, don't be like that. Threads are more interesting if you explain why you disagree with someone rather than just being dismissive. I mean the gist of what he said was "Poor people aren't as politically engaged as others", I agree with that. I'm interested to know why you think otherwise?

If they are so politically disengaged, how on earth has it got to this stage in the first place?

The fact is, the moment any politician does anything that could even remotely be considered to be protecting the rich or disadvantaging the poor, a whole host of wailing errupts from countless sources (and the Guardian, obviously).

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Ignoring the bits about politicians being power hungry, selfish and lying, what specifically you think is claptrap about the above?

In bold. The quotation was from Emma Goldman

Awww, don't be like that. Threads are more interesting if you explain why you disagree with someone rather than just being dismissive. I mean the gist of what he said was "Poor people aren't as politically engaged as others", I agree with that. I'm interested to know why you think otherwise?

I'm not sure I agree with that. I've seen people from all backgrounds both engaged and not engaged in politics. I'm not sure I've seen any evidence that back up "Poor people aren't as politically engaged as others", maybe in an area that is very affluent they would be less likely to vote as there vote is unlikely to make a difference, but in working class town the opposite may well be true with the more affluent less likely to engage as they are in the minority. You perception of "Poor people aren't as politically engaged as others" may well be a product of where you live however a link to poll of some good research may well convince me.

sketchley

TheStone wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Be careful with that it's been done and has a major pitfall. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speenhamland_system

Finally my GCSE in History has come to some use.....

Great link, but isn't that kind of what we have now anyway?

No this was different. The key effect of it was that employers paid less knowing the parish would top up the difference, plus workers had no incentive to do better as a pay raise meant they just got less from the parish.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Ignoring the bits about politicians being power hungry, selfish and lying, what specifically you think is claptrap about the above?

In bold. The quotation was from Emma Goldman

Awww, don't be like that. Threads are more interesting if you explain why you disagree with someone rather than just being dismissive. I mean the gist of what he said was "Poor people aren't as politically engaged as others", I agree with that. I'm interested to know why you think otherwise?

If they are so politically disengaged, how on earth has it got to this stage in the first place?

The fact is, the moment any politician does anything that could even remotely be considered to be protecting the rich or disadvantaging the poor, a whole host of wailing errupts from countless sources (and the Guardian, obviously).

The wailing is just liberal paternalism, you can't say thats the poor representing themselves and being politically engaged. I could be wrong, but I'd guess that they're under represented in voter demographic spread.

TheStone

Sketchley wrote:

No this was different. The key effect of it was that employers paid less knowing the parish would top up the difference, plus workers had no incentive to do better as a pay raise meant they just got less from the parish.

Still sounds exactly like what we have now.

notsoblue

Sketchley wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with that. I've seen people from all backgrounds both engaged and not engaged in politics. I'm not sure I've seen any evidence that back up "Poor people aren't as politically engaged as others", maybe in an area that is very affluent they would be less likely to vote as there vote is unlikely to make a difference, but in working class town the opposite may well be true with the more affluent less likely to engage as they are in the minority. You perception of "Poor people aren't as politically engaged as others" may well be a product of where you live however a link to poll of some good research may well convince me.

Well its just a hunch really and I didn't have anything to back it up. But I just found this paper from the Electoral Commission which comes to the following conclusions that kinda support what I'm saying:

The research summarised in this paper highlights that those experiencing
social deprivation tend also to be among the most politically excluded within
society. In this paper we have explored the main factors that are thought to
drive social exclusion and political exclusion. These include unemployment
and low income, poverty, education, skills and training deprivation, health
deprivation and disability, access to transport, fear of crime, neighbourhood,
and housing.

Research suggests a ‘… near universal association between political
participation [electoral and political] and socio-economic status’and political
disengagement and social exclusion appear to consolidate and drive each
other. However, the exact relationship and causal direction between factors of
social exclusion and levels and forms of political disengagement remains
difficult to determine.

Many commentators have expressed concerns about the development of
a ‘participation divide’ and the risk that social and political exclusion will
reinforce each other over time. Julian Le Grand explains that the deprivation
associated with social exclusion can impede people’s ability to engage in
political activities, which ‘damages democracy.’

On a more positive note,
Democratic Dialogue have argued that with ‘… the necessary investment of
time, resources, imagination and encouragement, excluded groups can be
won to confidence and activism’.

SimonAH

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Ignoring the bits about politicians being power hungry, selfish and lying, what specifically you think is claptrap about the above?

In bold. The quotation was from Emma Goldman

Awww, don't be like that. Threads are more interesting if you explain why you disagree with someone rather than just being dismissive. I mean the gist of what he said was "Poor people aren't as politically engaged as others", I agree with that. I'm interested to know why you think otherwise?

And I thought I was being witty as well as dismissive :-D

OK, the point is that we have the vote for all those not incarcerated.

Generally speaking voting apathy is not income related, whereas the numbers of bodies are - proportionately there are far more relatively poor than rich.

Being seen to attack the poor or defenceless unfairly or disproportionately in the UK is liable to raise the howling masses to the ballot box (which strikes fear into the heart of any governement in the relatively balanced two party-ish system that we have here).

Attacking the wealthy doesn't have the same effect at the ballot box (in fact far less, as the same numberous group of the relatively poor are generally in favour and outweigh and voting backlash from further up the economic scale.

Ergo it is actually political suicide to overtly target the poor in a British style democracy. In a one-party system or a feudal system it's very easy (although you always have to keep an eye out for pike waving revolutionaries as you lie back on your silk cushions.)

mudcow007

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

That places a higher value on the first two kids and I feel is morally wrong. Would you tell Bassjunkie that he couldn't or shouldn't have child number 3,4,5 and 6 because they weren't financially viable for the British tax payers? Go on send him a PM. :twisted:

But if you have to rely on benefits to be able to afford to feed/ clothe kids then why have more and more kids?

that's like saying "I want to have two cars, but i cant afford one, so I'm going to ask for help paying for the second"!?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Ignoring the bits about politicians being power hungry, selfish and lying, what specifically you think is claptrap about the above?

In bold. The quotation was from Emma Goldman

Awww, don't be like that. Threads are more interesting if you explain why you disagree with someone rather than just being dismissive. I mean the gist of what he said was "Poor people aren't as politically engaged as others", I agree with that. I'm interested to know why you think otherwise?

If they are so politically disengaged, how on earth has it got to this stage in the first place?

The fact is, the moment any politician does anything that could even remotely be considered to be protecting the rich or disadvantaging the poor, a whole host of wailing errupts from countless sources (and the Guardian, obviously).

The wailing is just liberal paternalism, you can't say thats the poor representing themselves and being politically engaged. I could be wrong, but I'd guess that they're under represented in voter demographic spread.

So how have we got to the stage where there are even arguments against capping benefits (for the poor) at more than the average salary of someone who works? It would indicate that the poor are in fact very well represented and protected.

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with that. I've seen people from all backgrounds both engaged and not engaged in politics. I'm not sure I've seen any evidence that back up "Poor people aren't as politically engaged as others", maybe in an area that is very affluent they would be less likely to vote as there vote is unlikely to make a difference, but in working class town the opposite may well be true with the more affluent less likely to engage as they are in the minority. You perception of "Poor people aren't as politically engaged as others" may well be a product of where you live however a link to poll of some good research may well convince me.

Well its just a hunch really and I didn't have anything to back it up. But I just found this paper from the Electoral Commission which comes to the following conclusions that kinda support what I'm saying:

The research summarised in this paper highlights that those experiencing
social deprivation tend also to be among the most politically excluded within
society. In this paper we have explored the main factors that are thought to
drive social exclusion and political exclusion. These include unemployment
and low income, poverty, education, skills and training deprivation, health
deprivation and disability, access to transport, fear of crime, neighbourhood,
and housing.

Research suggests a ‘… near universal association between political
participation [electoral and political] and socio-economic status’and political
disengagement and social exclusion appear to consolidate and drive each
other. However, the exact relationship and causal direction between factors of
social exclusion and levels and forms of political disengagement remains
difficult to determine.

Many commentators have expressed concerns about the development of
a ‘participation divide’ and the risk that social and political exclusion will
reinforce each other over time. Julian Le Grand explains that the deprivation
associated with social exclusion can impede people’s ability to engage in
political activities, which ‘damages democracy.’

On a more positive note,
Democratic Dialogue have argued that with ‘… the necessary investment of
time, resources, imagination and encouragement, excluded groups can be
won to confidence and activism’.

Fair point about a link social exclusion and political exclusion, however that may well work in two ways, for example a right wing upper class tory is going to feel very socially excluded in a mining town in Wales and if therefore also going to feel politically excluded, at least from local politics. Likewise a homeless family being put up in rented accommodation in Sandbanks in Poole (unlikely to happen but it is most expensive real estate in UK IIRC so you get my point) is also going to be socially excluded by the locals and therefore unlikely to be politically active.

Of course this is a generalisation.

SimonAH

At least judging by the number of posters in windows come election time I saw far more political activism and inclusion in the Rhondda during my time there than anywhere else I've lived in my life.

Political exclusion my arrse.

DonDaddyD

mudcow007 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

That places a higher value on the first two kids and I feel is morally wrong. Would you tell Bassjunkie that he couldn't or shouldn't have child number 3,4,5 and 6 because they weren't financially viable for the British tax payers? Go on send him a PM. :twisted:

But if you have to rely on benefits to be able to afford to feed/ clothe kids then why have more and more kids?

that's like saying "I want to have two cars, but i cant afford one, so I'm going to ask for help paying for the second"!?

But isn't that the point of the benefit to enable a person to afford another kid. Clothes, toys and books can be passed down. School is free.

Out of interest what would you say is the minimum you would need to have/earn to afford a your child?

Koncordski

I think you'll see that even with all the howling from the left this policy has political and public support. It's very very hard for anyone to say that capping at £26k NET is unfair. As countless others have stated above, that equals £35k before tax give or take a few quid. If you and your partner want a large family that will require a big house then you had better work out how you can afford it. We live in a bizarre world where the state will continue to pay you to have children, then pay private landlords an extortionate rent to house them all. Anyone objecting to the idea of a cap is saying that the state has an obligation to support their voluntary choice to have kids. You choose to have children, you decide that you want a another one, you should think about what compromises you need to make to your lifestyle to be able to afford this. It's sensible to have a cap, the limit has to be enforced somewhere and I don't think you'll find the majority of UK taxpayers objecting to this. Overturn the bishops bleeding heart decision and include child benefit for the sake of future generations.

Paul E

DonDaddyD wrote:

But isn't that the point of the benefit to enable a person to afford another kid. Clothes, toys and books can be passed down. School is free.

Out of interest what would you say is the minimum you would need to have/earn to afford a your child?

The point of benefits is not to enable people to keep having more and more kids.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The wailing is just liberal paternalism, you can't say thats the poor representing themselves and being politically engaged. I could be wrong, but I'd guess that they're under represented in voter demographic spread.

So how have we got to the stage where there are even arguments against capping benefits (for the poor) at more than the average salary of someone who works? It would indicate that the poor are in fact very well represented and protected.

You've missed my point. They're well represented by Polly Toynbee et al. The arguments I've heard that could be considered to even vaguely be against capping benefits (I don't think I've heard any who have overtly against them to be honest) seem to be put forward by people who recognise that there is a significant group of people for which the transition will be a major upset. And its not those who would be featured as "benefit scroungers" in The Sun. Its just people of a lower socio-economic group that live within Zone 4 of London. Ian Duncan Smith's statement that the current situation encourages this group of people to be too dependant on the state is pretty accurate, and again, I haven't heard anyone disagree with this. Its the attitude to managing the fallout of the transition thats the main point of argument.

Also, the biggest outcry was about Child Benefit rather than Housing Benefit. The latter of which is less of a concern for the average or above average salaried. It was when CB was at risk that the the DDD's of the country took notice. After all, their nappy/beer/SWTOR Subscription/Trust Fund money was at risk

Paul E

Koncordski wrote:

I think you'll see that even with all the howling from the left this policy has political and public support. It's very very hard for anyone to say that capping at £26k NET is unfair. As countless others have stated above, that equals £35k before tax give or take a few quid. If you and your partner want a large family that will require a big house then you had better work out how you can afford it. We live in a bizarre world where the state will continue to pay you to have children, then pay private landlords an extortionate rent to house them all. Anyone objecting to the idea of a cap is saying that the state has an obligation to support their voluntary choice to have kids. You choose to have children, you decide that you want a another one, you should think about what compromises you need to make to your lifestyle to be able to afford this. It's sensible to have a cap, the limit has to be enforced somewhere and I don't think you'll find the majority of UK taxpayers objecting to this. Overturn the bishops bleeding heart decision and include child benefit for the sake of future generations.

+1

mudcow007

DonDaddyD wrote:

But isn't that the point of the benefit to enable a person to afford another kid. Clothes, toys and books can be passed down. School is free.

I doubt if that is what benefits are suppose to be for, an if it is, why aren't people just continuously breeding just to get more an more benefits...oh wait

im not against people having kids, i'm really not but i think people need to live within their own means

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The wailing is just liberal paternalism, you can't say thats the poor representing themselves and being politically engaged. I could be wrong, but I'd guess that they're under represented in voter demographic spread.

So how have we got to the stage where there are even arguments against capping benefits (for the poor) at more than the average salary of someone who works? It would indicate that the poor are in fact very well represented and protected.

You've missed my point. They're well represented by Polly Toynbee et al. The arguments I've heard that could be considered to even vaguely be against capping benefits (I don't think I've heard any who have overtly against them to be honest) seem to be put forward by people who recognise that there is a significant group of people for which the transition will be a major upset. And its not those who would be featured as "benefit scroungers" in The Sun. Its just people of a lower socio-economic group that live within Zone 4 of London. Ian Duncan Smith's statement that the current situation encourages this group of people to be too dependant on the state is pretty accurate, and again, I haven't heard anyone disagree with this. Its the attitude to managing the fallout of the transition thats the main point of argument.

Also, the biggest outcry was about Child Benefit rather than Housing Benefit. The latter of which is less of a concern for the average or above average salaried. It was when CB was at risk that the the DDD's of the country took notice. After all, their nappy/beer/SWTOR Subscription/Trust Fund money was at risk

I don't think I've missed your point, but you are dodging my question....

If the poor are badly represented, how come they are so well looked after (relatively)? How have we got to this state of affairs if they are so unengaged or unrepresented?

It is notable how most people only really care about something when it threatens them! For what it's worth, I think CB should be scrapped alltogether - if you're relying on a £20 a week safety net from the state in order to look after your child properly then I'd question the sanity and responsibility of having the child in the first place. By all means have other benefits if they are required as a short-term safety net, but the current position is barking.