£26,000 Benefit Cap

[abdoujaparov]

You do understand there isn't a pot with your name on it don't you? It doesn't work that way...

[kaosmark2]

no shit?

nice try at avoiding the point - your usual tactic - but no cigar

[Ed209]

Barry, by wanting to tell people how to spend their money you're essentially treating people on benefits as lower class humans. You want to reduce their freedoms and enforce control over their lives. Shame on you.

[Ed209]

OK, whats so important about Sky subscriptions? .. what about fags? Booze? chocolate? Dinners out? Jewelery? Trips away? These are all "luxuries" in the purest sense of the word. where you going to draw the line?

[kaosmark2]

Benefits should be targeted and give you the basics... If you want more then you need a job...

Most of what you mention seems to me as very much luxury items and behind the scope of benefits...

[Ed209]

Barry essentially wants all people on benefits to be sat at home wearing a cloth, reading a book borrowed from the library, drinking water and eating soup and bread. Anything more than that and should bloody work.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

*edited due to having a rant*

Edited March 7, 2012 by Rufus Gwertigan

[eFestivals]

If you are getting hand outs then I think the public have a right to concern themselves what the money is being used for. It's not their money, it's the states money...

if a cut in benefits all round can be justified, then campaign for it and get it done.

But the benefits money that is paid out is that person's to use how they like. If they (say) chose to eat the cheapest food which gives them money for (say) sky then that's their choice.

No one tells you how you can spend your money, and you are no less dependent on others to channel that money in your direction than a person on benefits is.

[eFestivals]

Yup... I bought a car seat with the CB money... That ok?

So what you're saying is that govt handouts enabled you to have a car for use by your child. How the fuck is that any different to a family choosing their own choice of luxury of sky?

And then of course there's the other 11 months of child benefit you had, which paid for the luxury of a 3rd holiday for your family.

Yeah, it's just people with sky who take the piss.

[eFestivals]

Look at how the NHS refuse treatment depending on weight and you will see that is already happening...

Put down the daily mail, put your hands up, and walk away.

The NHS does not refuse treatment depending on weight. They refuse treatment on the basis of the treatment's chance of success, which is hugely reduced in some instances where people are hugely over-weight.

[eFestivals]

Benefits should be targeted and give you the basics...

well, in that case, until you are unable to afford biscuits you should be refusing to claim child benefit.

Are you?

Or is it one rule for decent Barry and another rule for scumbag claimants (which claiming Barry is also one of?)

Oh dear. Shut the fuck up until you can live up to your words.

[eFestivals]

People should claim the benefits they are entitled to... Otherwise you allow a stigma around claiming benefits to grow...

pmsl.

so what you're saying is that rich you are entitled to benefits - to buy you luxuries like holidays* and help your motoring expenses - but that others shouldn't get benefits which allow them to buy any luxuries at all because the country can't afford it.

(* you can say that your cb doesn't pay for these all you like, but all your money is in the same pot, and the £1,055pa you get in CB certainly pays for things you couldn't otherwise have)

You really are fucking ridiculous. It's clearly a case of double-standards.

Everything for Barry because he's deserving of it. Fuck all for anyone else no matter how needed it might be.

[eFestivals]

I am saying what I said...

and what you've said is that the country can't afford to give benefits to people to spend on luxuries.

So .... why are taking benefit money to spend on luxuries?

It's clear that you don't apply what you believe is right to yourself.

And if people should claim the benefits they're entitled to, then there cannot be any problem with others choosing to spend their benefit money on Sky.

It's clear that you warp your thoughts in your favour and discriminate against those who you wish to believe are leeching scum.

[eFestivals]

CB is being removed from me because I don't need it... Fair enough...

That's a different thing tho.

You've been saying it's wrong for benefits to be given to people to buy them luxuries, while happily cashing in yourself to do just that and saying it's wrong for those benefits to be removed from you.

You don't live up to the standards that you wish others to have. Hypocrite!

[eFestivals]

I do believe in universal benefits but only while we can afford them. I think you should claim what you are entitled to but its time to remove some entitlements. Stop misrepresenting my views please.

It's no mis-representation of your views for me to state clearly what you've said in your mealy-mouthed way...

That you don't believe that benefit payments should be based on need. Your view is "fuck em, let the kids starve".

If you don't like me saying that, you don't like yourself and it's time for you to reconsider your views.

[eFestivals]

there are some situation where it will cause a real problem. So I think the cap is fine

Barry: "fuck em. Let their kids starve"

Your words, constant thru this thread. If you don't like your own words then it's time to change your views.

[eFestivals]

You really think some kids going to starve from this change ? I find that hard to believe...

yeah, but you're also the guy who believes that the small amount of money that the cap is claimed to save is a financial necessity, when the govt itself knows that it'll bring an extra cost and not make any of the claimed savings, and that same govt has found twice as much as the claimed savings for the restoration of the non-necessity of weekly bin collections.

The organisations working in the areas of the people effected by the cap all say it'll cause all sorts of real issues to thousands (if not tens of thousands) of real kids. Kids - not any perhaps-workshy parents they might have.

Even the leaders of the church you attend accept that. You know, the faith that you believe makes people better people - but not you it seems.

And the source for your own belief is what? The Daily Sieg Heil? Dave Moron's propaganda which even he doesn't believe and knows is fantasy? Or just your own disgusting invention based on your own baseless prejudices?

[eFestivals]

I think you have highlighted a very exceptional case where there is a stupidly large family living in an expensive area who are going to need some additional support.

we are not talking about families whop are living it up in a mansion on Campden Hill Square (London's most expensive properties, if you don't know).

We are talking about normal families living a normal existence in normal housing throughout the south east of England (if not in other parts of the country too).

If those families were to move from that "expensive area" we are talking about them being re-located tens of miles away at the very least - meaning new schools for their kids, plus all of the costs of moving, raising deposits of typically £3k or more and the like - an impossibility for anyone who is already living day-to-day on benefits.

You suggest they will starve and die, I think the government will have to do something to help.

An easy thing to do.

Don't introduce an arbitrary cap on benefits. Pay benefits based on need instead.

Outside of that the cap is a good idea.

So what you're saying is....

Where the cap doesn't affect the needs of anyone, there should be a cap. It's a great idea, but one that is completely pointless, because....

When do you think this country started paying out benefits that had no relationship to needs?

FFS, you really are amazingly thick. I'm amazed that you have the intelligence to breathe.

[eFestivals]

Question for you Neil...

What do you say to the working family with six kids with a net income of around £26,000 ?

One is working for what they have they other is getting similar amounts for no work... Forever if they wish ?

Whats the point in the other family bothering to try and get work... Work does not always pay... A lot of the time you get similar levels or sometimes less than what is possible on benefits...

It's unfortunate that things have panned out in that way, that a family with six kids might struggle on the mean-average income meaning that benefits need to be paid at the same level.

(note: the median-average is many thousands lower)

That's a relatively new phenomenon, and shows how our society is getting forever more fucked over by the rich, by the likes of you who believe that you have earnt all you acquire (rather than you acquiring it via the mis-fortune of others, by stealing the money that could see them employed).

There's two things which are of much more importance than the meaningless dogma you use to disgustingly justify making kids starve...

1. the reality of the world, which DOES mean that kids will starve via this cap, that benefit payments above the level of that arbitrary cap are needed to meet the needs of some people in this country. And...

2. reversing the situation which sees the likes of you stealing the present and futures of people which forces them into such a position.

Forget the dogma. Address the real issues.

[eFestivals]

I have been playing devil advocate throughout this conversation...

yeah right, you're not the reactionary unthinking scum you have constantly presented yourself as over many years, who's a sucker for any story ion the Daily Hate Mail. PMSL.

But still, I'm taking this as you having finally woken up to just how disgusting the views you've been presenting are. And that's a result.

You and others think its perfectly fine to judge and morally attack people on higher incomes, and to an extent talk and treat them as sub humans... but you don't like it the other way...

I think there is a sound principle of making work pay...

there is a sound principle of making work pay. There is also a sound principle of not having work over-pay.

And guess why work doesn't pay for so many?

Of making benefits fit for the job... And there has been VERY clearly example of the current level of benefits being way above what people actually need...

Making benefits fit for the job means paying benefits based on need, and not limiting benefits via an arbitrary cap.

I'm not against the idea that benefits may be being over-paid. It's a long time since I've mixed enough with enough people on benefits to know whether that might be the case or not, so I don't know either way. But I'm certainly not going to be taking the word of the Daily Hate Mail for whether that is the case.

If benefits are being over-paid then it won't be difficult for the govt to make that case and win wide-spread approval for it. The fact that they're not trying to make that case - particularly with a tory govt in power - suggests to me that it's probably not the case.

The cap in principle sounded ok but it was blown apart a long time back in this conversation. I like Neils idea of cutting the benefits by 10% across the board as being a better approach.

I'm pleased to see you've finally woken up.

But I said *IF* a case can be made for that I'm not against doing it.

As I've just said above, the fact that they're not trying to make that case - particularly with a tory govt in power - suggests to me that it's probably not the case.

Some of the things I said in this conversation I totally and are fecking facts. Large families, higher financial risks etc... Benefits should be for need and not luxury...

Benefits *SHOULD* be for need and not luxury. But when you've said that you've also been saying that you agree with the cap which has no relationship to need.

I think the government need to put more jobs in the economy and make moves to introduce things like rent control.

That would be a start.

But the base of the problems lie with the likes of you and what you earn at the expense of what others are able to earn (or earn at all). Unless that side of things is addressed then we're getting nowhere really.

The whole idea you constantly present that you deserve every penny that you earn is false.

Your job is nothing greater than the equivalent of a craft-level apprenticeship-served workman in the days of manufacturing, who would be earning around the level of both the mean and median average wage, and not the plus-50% above that wage that you actually collect.

If you truly believe all you say then you need to face up to all of the consequences around that, and drop the prices you charge to reflect that reality. By dropping your prices you would force others to compete at the same rate, and the situation changes for the better.

You constantly love to ridicule the realisation I've long had about this, and ridicule the choices I've made off the back of that. If you truly believe what you've said you need to realise that what you ridicule is your own future and adjust your life to what you say you believe.

[lost]

Barrys views are to the left of public opinion. according to yougov two thirds want the cap set at 20k

[eFestivals]

How much do I deserve to earn Neil ?

Asked you this time and time again but you never answer

I've just said.

Your job is no more deserving of a wage that's somewhere between the median and mean average - so that's in about the £22k-£26k range.

[eFestivals]

Real example with modified numbers for various reasons...

I built a loan application system for £100k... It increased turnover as a direct result for the customer of about 20%... Which was a increase in profits of multi-millions....

You really think I am directly comparable to a craft-level apprenticeship-served workman in the days of manufacturing ?

You are just wrong

Guess what? Craft level workers used to give the companies they worked for the same boost in profits in the age of manufacturing.

Could a million other programmers followed the same instructions that you had and got the same result.

The answer is yes.

There is nothing special about what you do. But you constantly post and make clear that you believe yourself to be better and more special than most others.

But guess what? If your work dries up - which is not within your control - you become the same scum you detest. And that proves you're no more special.

[eFestivals]

Something special Well there is a total useless turn of phrase...

There is nothing special in what I do other than what I do has a big impact on a companies profits... What I do is what I do

What is special ? Just out of interest

And which trades would you pay more

The tea lady has a big impact on any company's profits, cos if the tea lady ain't making the boss's tea he has to do it himself and is diverted from other things as a result.

Could a million other programmers have followed the same instructions as you had in that case? Yes. Nothing special.

FFS, I've done the same thing myself for a number of blue-chips both directly and indirectly. I'm responsible for around £6 billion pounds worth of business by IBM via giving them a continuing life-span for a product range they were about to start phasing out. Do you have anything to match that?

Was what I did anything special? Nope. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and did what anyone could have done with the same limited skill set as myself. The same limited skill set as you have. Craftman skills, not even engineer's skills (even tho I'm entitled to call myself an engineer via a mostly worthless qualification).

If you ever get any special skills then you're deserving of a special wage. When you do, get back to me.

[eFestivals]

If there where millions of others you would imagine that would drive down prices...

not when they're mostly self-important twats as you like to believe yourself to be.

The greatest lie of capitalism is the claim of market prices. A quick look at the pay of FTSE100 bosses gets to prove the truth of that.