Benifits Cap at 26k

ddraver

I guess he's playing in the Commuting section today...

Xommul

Maybe if they spent money on getting rid of benefit thieves, tax dodgers, and reduce handouts to people who want an easy ride in the uk then there will be more money to really assist people rather than keeping them in benefits and never improving lower income families lives and helping them not need benefits.

I dont want to see more people and families on the street or turning to crime but its right to send a message that there is no free ride, there is a growing resentment in the country and i think the wrong people are gonna get the blame.

verylonglegs

jim453 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

jim453 wrote:

How come Rick Chasey has not appeared yet.

He's always right about everything isn't he?

What with him being the worlds leading intellectual specialising in economic and social problems (and their solution).

What this thread really needs is a good healthy dose of Chasey's not smug at all correctness.

You re a fan then?

I'm only having a laugh, he's got a sense of humour I'm sure he can take it. Even if he can't he can always fall back on the fact that he's never been wrong about anything.

Ever.

I am interested in where he is though. This is exactly the type of thread that he likes to post on whilst at work. Holiday perhaps?

Dunno, maybe he's seen enough of these type of threads of which there have been a lot lately. I nearly didn't post on it as it follows a familiar pattern, left and right attack each other for a bit, a few moderate counter-points appear and then there are the conciliatory posts that grumble how 'something has got to change.'....and then the thread dies. Rinse and repeat.

EKIMIKE

The housing benefit issue is a really interesting one. It's been a big shouting point for while, numerous politicians promising to 'get tough' on it. Only... they look at it objectively and see that if they cut housing benefit, the ones who lose out are the William's and Penelope's who went out and bought 2 maybe 3 maybe a 'portfolio' of properties in the boom years and now need rent to keep their heads above the bankruptcy mark.

If we use capitalism and free market's as our guide here, the William's and Penelope's of this world should accept the risk they took on property speculation and stop relying on state handouts which manipulate the market no-end. So much for small government... Capitalism for the poor, Socialism for the wealthy.

The massive, HUGE fallacy of this thread is the assumption of 26K being the norm for a benefits claimant. How wrong could you be!

What many here are lacking is an educated perspective. They haven't read prudently. Isn't it then ironic to compare the similarities between these fools and the under-educated young couples who pop out 7 kids whilst on benefits.

The stereotypes on both sides are equally ridiculous. Many say benefits claimants are lazy, workshy scum who deliberately knock out kids to ensure their £26k. Benefits claimants say many are on banker style bonuses and have all the luxuries they could want. When ignorance is the common denominator is it any wonder we're making such little progress?

tim_wand

ekimike. I ll put my neck on the block here. It isnt a lack of education on the debate or a belief that everyone who receives benefits , receives £26'000. I think we can all differentiate.

However the vast majority of us dont earn anywhere near £26,000 a year before or after Tax (take note of that word EARN) and even the thought of just one individual receiving that much of tax payers money for doing shag all is abhorent to me and many others.

So yes I know not everyone receives £26,000 in benefits, the point is NO ONE SHOULD.

Mr_Cellophane

Cressers wrote:

Its about the non-collection of income tax from the very wealthiest in society.

Tony Blair ?

verylonglegs

EKIMIKE wrote:

The housing benefit issue is a really interesting one. It's been a big shouting point for while, numerous politicians promising to 'get tough' on it. Only... they look at it objectively and see that if they cut housing benefit, the ones who lose out are the William's and Penelope's who went out and bought 2 maybe 3 maybe a 'portfolio' of properties in the boom years and now need rent to keep their heads above the bankruptcy mark.

If we use capitalism and free market's as our guide here, the William's and Penelope's of this world should accept the risk they took on property speculation and stop relying on state handouts which manipulate the market no-end. So much for small government... Capitalism for the poor, Socialism for the wealthy.

The massive, HUGE fallacy of this thread is the assumption of 26K being the norm for a benefits claimant. How wrong could you be!

What many here are lacking is an educated perspective. They haven't read prudently. Isn't it then ironic to compare the similarities between these fools and the under-educated young couples who pop out 7 kids whilst on benefits.

The stereotypes on both sides are equally ridiculous. Many say benefits claimants are lazy, workshy scum who deliberately knock out kids to ensure their £26k. Benefits claimants say many are on banker style bonuses and have all the luxuries they could want. When ignorance is the common denominator is it any wonder we're making such little progress?

Feel free to submit your reading list that allows you to dismiss everyone else as fools.

Big Hairy Wallapers

Sadly we will always get this whinging until a simple definition of 'safety net' is brought into place.
If you fall on hard times you get nothing for the first three months.
You then get upto 9 months support.
If after 12 months you're still sitting on your tail that's become a 'lifestyle choice' and all hard working taxpayers should not be expected to pay for it!
No further benefit will be paid.

Simplees!

rake

verylonglegs wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

I believe that much of the problem has come from the Tories, not the ones in power now but Thatcher and her cronies from the eighties. They were happy to put millions on the dole to further their battle against the Unions and the working classes. Putting people in their place as it were. Now we have the second and third generations of these people living on benefits. How can we blame them, they feel they have no future working for minimum wage in crap jobs so they stay on the dole just like their parents were forced to. Why should people born on an estate in Hackney or Islington be forced to move to Blackburn just because their landlord milks the system. It's a form of ethnic cleansing in my book and totally shameful.

Well if you live in Norfolk you should be well aware people come here from all over Europe, some leaving their families behind, to work and earn money. Yet some people born on this island squeal like pigs at the suggestion of moving a hundred miles to find work. Why is that?

firstly where are all of these places in the uk where all the work is at where people can go and live happily ever after. if everyone starts moving hundreds of miles to find work all that will achieve is wasting a lot of fuel and c02 as the people they pass have come from where they are going to where they have come from in search of work. Also its the very favorable exchange rate that brings many from europe making our employment problem worse, there is nothing to be gained the other way around. why do you think a lot of them come so far to work in factories for very little. they obviously thought it was better here.

Frank the tank

Saw a tv programme in which they interviewed some Polish immigrants. The "benefits" paid there were very low a months benefits would only last a week so it's a case of find the shortfall somehow or starve.

While I don't like folk taking the p1ss (at the bottom and the top) out of ordinary working people I don't want to live in a country that would happily see millions starve.

On another point, what happens when thousands of unemployed are forced to live in areas of already high unemployment as they're the areas where rents and house prices are at their lowest. We realy would have a north/south divide and a potential civil war. MT and her cabinet once discussed the idea of totally turning their back on the city of Liverpool.

bristolpete

I worked in the old Benefits Agency for 15 odd years, then the DWP and Job Centre Plus. I left due to the abject horror of the monies being paid out then - just truly incredible, people netting £700.00 a week. I saw it with my own eyes.

Would never ever go back.

The last thing I remember is the last conversation with my old line manager back in 2005 as I was leaving. He said, just remember "in life cream rises to the top and eventually, the bottle will run out of milk, thats when us workers will laugh".

Whilst not all are doing it, I have not spared a thought or a care for people thieving on benefit / living hand to mouth since and will continue to live my life, on my terms and enjoy working hard as best I can and buy some shiny bikes when I can

pilot_pete

Firstly

A welfare state is something that makes us better than a third world society. It is the welfare state that dragged us out of the poverty riven, slum housing, unsanitary conditions of the 19th century. Having a welfare state is a good thing. It started out as that so called 'safety net', the ethos being that you helped yourself, and if something unfortunate happened you didn't end up back on the streets. Society had desire to help themselves and being on benefits was seen as shameful if you could in some way still help yourself.

Over the years things have changed. A class of society now feels no shame in taking that benefit when they are actually more than capable of helping themselves, but they just choose not to. It has become an easy option for some. I have a sister in law who has used and abused that safety net and used it as a lifestyle choice. She has three children by different fathers and lives on benefits. Whats more is she feels she has a right to those benefits and like many people in he position is extremely defensive about it and has excuse after excuse about why she can't help herself. Most of these excuses seem to be that it's not her fault, she can't do this, can't do that, couldn't improve her lot etc etc etc. she has no desire to improve her lot by improving her skill set to get off benefits. Benefits is her lifestyle choice. She is expert in claiming them. At he age of 40 she is now developing health problems which will gain her incapacity benefits. She is willing herself into bad health, it is truly galling to watch. She has an aunt who did the same thing, she willed herself not to be able to walk and just sat there day after day and sure enough eventually DVT set in and then gangrene. Eventually this lead to the inevitable. Most benefit claimants are not like this, and most would not go to these extremes....they just claim conditions that can't be denied by a doctor, like back pain or depression etc.

My own father gave up on work in 1985 and went on benefits. It bcame his sole purpose to maintain incapacity benefit until he reached pensionable age. It is disgusting to watch someone become like this. The thing is, they eventually convince themselves of their incapacity. He even did charity work driving a bus for disabled people and had the gall to complain when the government said anyone doing that could do work for a wage and therefore would lose benefits. What a surprise he stopped the charity bus driving! I am sickened by this sortof attitude and my relationship with my father has changed irrecoverably. He has lost all the reapect i had for him. He was a socialist to the core, swore constantly at the telly when Margaret Thatcher appeared, yet bought his council house with a huge discount and then sold it on a few years later for a massive profit and moved away to a cheaper area to live without a mortgage! Real socialism in action! Yet again though, he thinks he is right, everyone else is wrong, he has the right, blah, blah, blah. It is SHAMELESS. It is these people that are abusing the system. These are the people that need an attitude adjustment. They will NEVER change unless forced to.

I vowed to learn the lessons from my experiences growing up on a rough council estate in south London and just have a completely different attitude. I have been unemployed, I have been made redundant twice. I used my redundancy money to better myself the first time and gain a qualification which would gain me employment, hopefully for the rest of my working life. I borrowed more money to finish that qualification and have paid hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax over the years. I don't begrudge paying my share, I am now top tax bracket on PAYE, so can't avoid any unlike these city bankers and their millions. What I do resent is having that tax money squandered on those who are not willing to help themselves. Like my two relatives. They will NEVER change unless forced to. These are the people in our society than are unjustly claiming tax payers money with no intention of ever stopping claiming. It is a lifestyle choice for these people and that is morally wrong.

I moved from South London after qualification and went to Scotland as it was the only job I could find. I gained experience and moved to a job south of the border. I couldn't afford to go back to the South East at the time, so went where I could find a job and afford to live. I settled with my family in the North West. I can't afford to live in Kensington & Chelsea on my six figure salary, so don't live there. Is it therefore right that taxpayers should pay for a benefit claimant to live there because they 'choose to'? Do they have a right to live there on thousands per week housing benefit? If you think they do then you are dreaming. You are not a socialist either! It is life. If you can't afford to live somewhere that is expensive then you move away. I did, so why shouldn't a benefit claimant? These individuals who choose not to work are still not going to work wherever they live, so why should the taxpayer fund the expensive pad? That is completely unjust.

There should also be a limit on extra benefits for children. The children should not suffer, but the parents have to be dissuaded from having more children to get more benefits. This is exactly what my sister in law did. She saw each child as a meal ticket. It is disgusting and wrong. I pay for my 3 kids and don't expect anyone else to pick up the tab. If I fall on hard times and need to claim then so be it, I have paid more into the system than I will ever claim back out, even if I never work again, but that doesn't matter. I would do a Norman Tebbit and get on my bike again seeking that next opportunity. I would not expect the job to land in my lap on my doorstep. Last year my company laid off 100 or so of my colleagues. Most of them have taken their skills to the Middle East as that was the only expanding market in our business. The nay Sayers will scoff at that saying they're lucky and its a paid holiday etc, but you will be surprised at how few of them wanted to go and earn similar money tax free. They love England and want to live here and bring up their families, but they are not gong to do that on benefits because there are no jobs, they have sought out the jobs and are looking at 5+ years away until the market picks up and they can come home. It's that sort of attitude that some claimants need instilling.

After reading all this you probably think I'm some Daily Mail reading right winger. Far from it. I still believe in the welfare state, I still think he NHS is the greatest institution ever formed in our country, but it needs reform terribly to get back to its roots of free treatment for all at the point of delivery. Delivering this cannot be a bottomless money pit and needn't be if it is run more efficiently. Equally, our welfare state needs to get back to its roots and provide that safety net for those who have been unfortunate In life. Those who abuse it need to be stopped from doing so. It has been an issue for years in this country and little has been done. It is time. Average salary in the UK is approximately £26k, how on earth can benefits above that be justified? How right is a system which rewards lack of ambition? That rewards not helping yourself? That traps generation after generation into this spiral?

Alongside this it has been too long that corporations have avoided paying their share of the tax burden, that smaller businesses have been able to avoid paying their share, that the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer, that wages have been forced down and cheaper foreign labour imported. We have become a service based economy when we could have ruled the world of manufacturing. But the past is the past. We are where we are. It is time to start righting some of those wrongs. Maybe starting with the tax revenue collection would be more desirable from a laymans point of view, but this doesn't make benefits scrounging acceptable.

We require a culture change, which is not going to happen quickly, but it must start and people must realise that there cannot be a something for nothing lifestyle choice any more. It is so morally wrong and is stealing from those who really do need society's help.

I support the cap. As many have said, it will not affect many genuine claimants who are claiming less.

PP

Gazzaputt

I don't turn up to work each day to keep the workshy in luxury.

I know several people on benefits who have very comfortable lives and no worries. Financial downturn? What the hell does that mean to them?

They can use their crisis loans to go and get a 3DTV for god sake! All drive decent cars.

I believe in taking away money after a year and replace with credits that can only purchase food and essentials.

Make it hard to live on benefits so it doesn't become a way of life.

CiB

Frank the tank wrote:

MT and her cabinet once discussed the idea of totally turning their back on the city of Liverpool.

No they didn't. How soon misunderstanding becomes fact becomes reality. Geoffrey Howe was reported to have suggested it as one possible option, something that he's since denied. The rest of the cabinet - Thatcher included - dismissed it as a bonkers idea that would never even be considered let alone implemented.

Still. Let's not have facts stand in the way of a good old anti-tory moan eh?

rick_chasey

jim453 wrote:

How come Rick Chasey has not appeared yet.

He's always right about everything isn't he?

Glad we can agree on something .

campbellrae1

*rant* Having just had to move to the other end of the country because that's the only place my partner could find a job, then not being able to live within 15 miles of that job because there is no way we can afford it I don't see how someone living on benefits has the 'right' to live wherever they please? When you work for a living you have the areas you can live in dictated to you by where you can find a job and afford to live. *rant over*

I know full well that there are only a few people abusing the system, and that the vast majority are hard up and struggling, but £26000 is a hell of a lot of money after tax, I would be bloody delighted if I earned that much! With the exception of disabled people with special care needs, I think a cap is right. However making sure that it doesn't impact on those genuinely in need will be hard to implement.

I must admit that seeing people who are on benefits with 'fashion label' clothing, big ass TV's and a sky subscription just pushes my views to the right even further, not to mention going on holiday when you're on them, that makes no sense! My mother works with someone who's sister has been on benefits for life with agoraphobia(fear of wide-open spaces in case I have spelled it wrong), who is fine to go on holiday twice a year?! How the hell can you be scared enough of open spaces to not go to work, but be fine to lie on a Spanish beach for a week???

Cleat Eastwood

ddraver

I honestly can't work out if you re joking or seriously deluded any more Cleat....

Frank the tank

CiB wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

MT and her cabinet once discussed the idea of totally turning their back on the city of Liverpool.

No they didn't. How soon misunderstanding becomes fact becomes reality. Geoffrey Howe was reported to have suggested it as one possible option, something that he's since denied. The rest of the cabinet - Thatcher included - dismissed it as a bonkers idea that would never even be considered let alone implemented.

Still. Let's not have facts stand in the way of a good old anti-tory moan eh?

Yep, that's me.

Harold Wilson once said of the tories. If they stop telling lies about me, I'll stop telling the truth about them,

Frank the tank

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

I'm with Malcolm on those sentiments, but hey, I'm a "loonie lefty".

briantrumpet

Frank the tank wrote:

Harold Wilson once said of the tories. If they stop telling lies about me, I'll stop telling the truth about them,

He also said "It does not mean that the pound here in Britain, in your pocket or purse or in your bank, has been devalued" after it had just been devalued by 14%.

rick_chasey

briantrumpet wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Harold Wilson once said of the tories. If they stop telling lies about me, I'll stop telling the truth about them,

He also said "It does not mean that the pound here in Britain, in your pocket or purse or in your bank, has been devalued" after it had just been devalued by 14%.

You can see what he means with that comment.

briantrumpet

Rick Chasey wrote:

You can see what he means with that comment.

And you can also see what he wanted the British public to think.

EKIMIKE

Has anyone considered the possiblity that the renumeration from their private sector job is disgustingly low?

Maybe this is why we see the 26k figure as so abhorrent. We've seen 40 years of wage repression for the average worker. Is it right that CEO's are paid 243 times more than the average worker?

But you in the private sector have the equal opportunity amongst your private sector peers of being that CEO, so the ideology goes. So if you're earning less than someone on benefits, you've only got yourself to blame right?

No-one on benefits has the opportunity to be paid as much as the CEO, rightly so. The majority don't even have the opportunity to be paid 26k. So again, how can YOU complain if you have a private sector job? You should be complaining to yourself if anyone. Jealousy will eat you up. Greed is a terrible mistress e.t.c.

This is simple free-market logic people. If you don't agree then you don't agree with free-markets. Blame is a solution to nothing. Cutting the income of the poor will do nothing to solve the problem. They may live a less comfortable life, it may make their life harder. Is 26k p/a a comfortable life if you have 7 kids? A disabled child? 2 disabled children? Happen to live in an area of inflated rent? How can we pass judgement with a few ropey anecdotes? Surely we need all the facts, otherwise we are simply being ignorant.

I'm not saying i'm right or you're wrong. Just that we can't pass judgement because we don't have the facts.

So to the crass person above who proposed i submit a reading list - the reading list is the facts. All of them, in perspective without statistical manipulation. I don't have them. Nor do you. I wonder if the government even have them.

rick_chasey

I don't think anyone is really disputing that getting £26k a year through benefit is a) a lot and b) tough on people who earn less.

However.

We need to establish a) whether those that get large amounts of benefits do live in the 'comfort' claimed. I'd suggest more often than not they do not.

b) the macro effect. I think the main dispute as I understand it is the socio-economic consequences of such a cap, which are disputed. In this instance, it could possibly turn the centre of London into a bourgeois haven, surrounded by 'slum' like areas, rather like Paris, since the high property and rent prices in London would price people on benefit out of the centre.

That has far reaching consequences.

Ultimately this is where the argument gets bogged down. As a general rule, people on the right will bang on about 'fairness' and give individiual examples "this guy works 26hrs a day for a crust and gets less than this monkey who does sfa in Mayfair", with people on the left looking at the broader picture which is complicated. (and just generally hating anything that isn't sticking it to the man)


We can all agree some benefit reform needs to be made. Is a cap the best solution? As far as I am concerned, it isn't.

(happy jim453?)

I mentioned elsewhere on here that the timing of this is unusual. Low-end earners spend much more of the cash they have (on sky tv and fags if you read the sun), so gov't spending/tax cuts that affect low earners have better multiplier results. Given that aggregate demand is falling, why not keep that kind of stimulus?

The IMF seemed unconcerned about Britain's deficit and insisting it spend more if possible.

Also, why go for the popularity boost now for such a policy so far from an election, especially since, by the looks of it, there won't be much to cheer about when it does come?

LeicesterLad

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't think anyone is really disputing that getting £26k a year through benefit is a) a lot and b) tough on people who earn less.

However.

We need to establish a) whether those that get large amounts of benefits do live in the 'comfort' claimed. I'd suggest more often than not they do not. b) the macro effect. I think the main dispute as I understand it is the socio-economic consequences of such a cap, which are disputed. In this instance, it could possibly turn the centre of London into a bourgeois haven, surrounded by 'slum' like areas, rather like Paris, since the high property and rent prices in London would price people on benefit out of the centre.

That has far reaching consequences.

Ultimately this is where the argument gets bogged down. As a general rule, people on the right will bang on about 'fairness' and give individiual examples "this guy works 26hrs a day for a crust and gets less than this monkey who does sfa in Mayfair", with people on the left looking at the broader picture which is complicated. (and just generally hating anything that isn't sticking it to the man)


We can all agree some benefit reform needs to be made. Is a cap the best solution? As far as I am concerned, it isn't.

(happy jim453?)

I could live very very nicely on £26k because its far and beyond what i get now, and i have the same outgoings as the average folk (nobody pays for my house/food/kids - I have to do all of that with my own hard earnt but pathetically small wage) - there will be the excuse of 'if you have 5/6/7/8/9 kids mouths to feed £26K is not much at all'...but then if they had done a bit of sex-education at school (if they attended school) and didn't breed like rabbits KNOWING FULL WELL they didn't have the means to support a large family (which i see day in day out in my work) then they wouldn't need it, and its entirely there own fault. Yes theres the cases of high earners losing jobs and ending up with nothing, but these seem an extreme rarity compared with the usual dole grabbing scrubbers/criminals spotted daily on many of Leicester's council estates.

Only speaking my mind from what i see from my own experiences through my work, and where i live, may be different in Larndarn or wherever...

Jez mon

How do you put all facts into perspective without some sort of statistical manipulation?

How do you get all of the facts?

You can't do either, as soon as you attempt to put something into context, you manipulate it. As for all of the facts, in any analysis, you have to make assumptions, it's just about impossible to avoid that...

Having said that, obviously as a group, we have fewer facts than would be ideal, and most of our stats have been ripped from the pages of newspapers...

Does that mean we shouldn't discuss things on the internet, I think not, it's not like policy is going to be decided on what's written in cake stop, and we might find out something new or change our opinion on certain things.

Rick, I look at the cap, and I look at the broader picture, and the effect on society. Ultimately, people on who choose to live the benefit lifestyle, have a detrimental effect on our society, children who exist as because their parents wanted more benefits aren't going to be well loved/looked after/nurtured. Essentially, they're going to get into trouble.

Of course, not everyone on benefits is on benefits by choice, in fact, it's impossible to know the percentage. However, they contribute b***** all and cause massive resentment.

Having said all that, I don't think solving any of this is as easy as introducing a cap on housing benefit, which won't have any effect on most claimants.

rick_chasey

LeicesterLad wrote:

I could live very very nicely on £26k because its far and beyond what i get now, and i have the same outgoings as the average folk (nobody pays for my house/food/kids - I have to do all of that with my own hard earnt but pathetically small wage) - there will be the excuse of 'if you have 5/6/7/8/9 kids mouths to feed £26K is not much at all'...but then if they had done a bit of sex-education at school (if they attended school) and didn't breed like rabbits KNOWING FULL WELL they didn't have the means to support a large family (which i see day in day out in my work) then they wouldn't need it, and its entirely there own fault. Yes theres the cases of high earners losing jobs and ending up with nothing, but these seem an extreme rarity compared with the usual dole grabbing scrubbers/criminals spotted daily on many of Leicester's council estates.

Only speaking my mind from what i see from my own experiences through my work, and where i live, may be different in Larndarn or wherever...

It's all context.

You're unlikely to get £26k of benefit if you are an able bodied bachelor with no kids at home living in a flat in the middle of Cumbria.

If you're a disabled mother with 6 kids living in London, it might be different, right?

LeicesterLad

Rick Chasey wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

I could live very very nicely on £26k because its far and beyond what i get now, and i have the same outgoings as the average folk (nobody pays for my house/food/kids - I have to do all of that with my own hard earnt but pathetically small wage) - there will be the excuse of 'if you have 5/6/7/8/9 kids mouths to feed £26K is not much at all'...but then if they had done a bit of sex-education at school (if they attended school) and didn't breed like rabbits KNOWING FULL WELL they didn't have the means to support a large family (which i see day in day out in my work) then they wouldn't need it, and its entirely there own fault. Yes theres the cases of high earners losing jobs and ending up with nothing, but these seem an extreme rarity compared with the usual dole grabbing scrubbers/criminals spotted daily on many of Leicester's council estates.

Only speaking my mind from what i see from my own experiences through my work, and where i live, may be different in Larndarn or wherever...

It's all context.

You're unlikely to get £26k of benefit if you are an able bodied bachelor with no kids at home living in a flat in the middle of Cumbria.

If you're a disabled mother with 6 kids living in London, it might be different, right?

Of course that would be different, but those situations, around here at least, are a very small minority i'm afraid. I wouldn't deny anyone who actually NEEDED the money through no fault of their own...and we can pluck the sob story scenario's out time and time again, but this doesn't take into account the thousands on the scrounge, or the many that have led their lives in a way that has resulted in the circumstances they find themselves in...IE the 'i can't be arsed to get a job, lets take some drugs, get drunk, have a load of kids, rob a few people' Majority, and as i said, round here that is deffinately the majority...possibly different in London...does anger me Cycling through Saffron Lane on my commute noticing all the scaffolding around the council houses fitting wall/loft insulation, new windows, doors, paintjobs, Solar bleeding panels...if only i could afford any of those things...there is a difference between helping the needy, and showering the shite with luxury...

Pross

I've often wondered why the government don't just pay the costs for essentails directly. I believe that this might now be done with housing but why not provide food vouchers, clothing vouchers, travel vouchers etc.? They could then provide a reasonable amount of cash for other items, it could also be linked in with schemes to ensure healthy eating as the vouchers could be redeemable only against healthier items but then you are starting to get into social engineering which is a bit risky! In going down that route you would ensure no-one starves, they have a roof over their heads and they can travel around as required to look for work whilst having a small amount to spend on other things. It would stop claims of people living in luxury on benefits (and yes, I know that isn't the case in many situations).