£26,000 Benefit Cap

[eFestivals]

I'm still laughing at the fact that Barry's priority is his holidays and not his kid's safety.

I would of bought a much cheaper one than we did do... I bought a really cool one with special safety features... £250... If not I would of gone for the standard one for about £150

Still, that explains an awful lot about what he's posted in this thread.

Edited March 7, 2012 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

150 came out of my income ... 100 out of cb fund...

Can't you read

[Ed209]

I genuinely give up.

we'd have more success teaching Quantum mechanics to a chimp

Edited March 7, 2012 by Ed209

[eFestivals]

150 came out of my income ... 100 out of cb fund...

Can't you read

We can all read, and until now you've not said that.

But you have previously said that you bought a car seat out of the CB money, which very clearly implies that the CB money paid for it all, and saved your other income from having to spend that money instead.

Which frees up your 'other money' to spend on luxuries, because of the child benefit money you get. Which equates to you buying luxuries out of the child benefit money.

------------------

But lets go with your new version of the truth instead for just a moment.....

You bought your child a luxury (instead of standard) car seat with just the £100 'extra' coming from CB to buy her that luxury (instead of standard) car seat.

So you're buying your kid luxuries with your child benefit money. Just like another parent might buy their kid the luxury of Sky tv.

-------------------

But I'm still laughing at how your three holidays a year are more important to you than your kid's safety.

Edited March 7, 2012 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

I genuinely give up.

we'd have more success teaching Quantum mechanics to a chimp

[eFestivals]

Chimps have been proven to make an effort to learn.

oh, c'mon, give Barry his dues.

It only took him 6 weeks to realise that real people will be actually affected by the arbitrary cap in benefits, and that benefit payments should be based on need and not have an arbitrary cap.

That might not be quite as quick as the chimp learning quantum mechanics but we can't have everything.

Edited March 7, 2012 by eFestivals

[lost]

And while everyone is bickering and arguing the cap has been passed into law

[sifi]

How so ?

Does it not worry you that the country is borrowing money on top of money to fund the current level of benefits ? and the time bomb that is creating ? Which will result in many more problems for future generations ?

I mean its all stupid question isn't it... We have x amount of money to spend... and currently we are spending more than we are bringing in... Yeah people are going to suffer to some extent..

I think I am along way from accepting children's health is at risk here. Tesco value porridge oaks for breakfast, free school meal and a simple prepared evening meal is not a bank breaker.

[feral chile]

I'm not convinced eating trees is the answer.

[feral chile]

[Good spot.

Barry, in my family we're both working, and we try to eat healthily. Our food bill is still quite high, because we eat a lot of fruit. I don't know how people manage to eat healthily on very low incomes. And we don't buy alcohol, don't smoke, and buy hardly any unnecessary food like biscuits and cakes. We even have to think twice about things like fresh herbs.

Free school meals in our area would stigmatize the child. When we were out of work, ours refused to have them, as the only kids having school meals were the free school meals kids, and they didn't want to be singled out from their classmates.

And what about when these families need large items replaced - washing machines, cookers etc.? It's extremely difficult to live long term on benefits, and it's bad enough feeling like you're a subclass of the working class without being abused by the government and forced into even greater hardship.

I'm really annoyed by this - it's an abuse of the most vulnerable members of society, who have been scapegoated with the tacit approval with a complicit public.

I believe a society is to be judged by how it treats those most disadvantaged,and I'm not proud of us at the moment. None of us, myself included, for allowing this to happen.

Edited March 7, 2012 by feral chile

[gary1979666]

Sorry to jump in with only reading the first and last couple of pages, this point has probably been raised (hopefully not by Barry ) But looking at the point above about the washing breaking, then surely regardless of benefit claimant or employed, if money is tight then that will be a problem.

Surely the point of benefits is to keep people to a basic left of living until they can get back on the employment ladder. Isn't the problem that benefits are at a level where it isn't worth going back to work as better off claiming? I'm not saying the actual amount is right or wrong, but the comparative should be there.

I don't wan't people in a position where they can't afford to eat, etc - but there needs to be some sort of incentive to work so that people. (Appreciate there's a whole minimum wage level agruement that can spark out of this).

[eFestivals]

Sorry to jump in with only reading the first and last couple of pages, this point has probably been raised (hopefully not by Barry ) But looking at the point above about the washing breaking, then surely regardless of benefit claimant or employed, if money is tight then that will be a problem.

Surely the point of benefits is to keep people to a basic left of living until they can get back on the employment ladder. Isn't the problem that benefits are at a level where it isn't worth going back to work as better off claiming? I'm not saying the actual amount is right or wrong, but the comparative should be there.

I don't wan't people in a position where they can't afford to eat, etc - but there needs to be some sort of incentive to work so that people. (Appreciate there's a whole minimum wage level agruement that can spark out of this).

Yep.

There's too many people on too high wages, meaning that the vast majority of people are on crap wages that pay little more than benefits. That's what happens when the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.

The answer isn't to cut benefits to a level where it's near-impossible to survive, the answer is to redistribute the money amongst the employed so that fewer are well-off so that more are earning a decent amount. Problem solved!

But the better off hold all the power, and there's no way they'll give up what they've got to ensure that others can have a decent wage. So we're fucked.

When you have people in public positions earning £250k pa via a sideline they're able to have because they're in that public position, and then they refer to that £250k as "chickenfeed" because they're raking it in from all directions, you know we're fucked.

The economists who predicted this outcome 30 years ago and were ridiculed for it still haven't been rehabilitated, and those who said they were wrong and led us here are still in charge. The lunatics really have taken over the asylum, but too few still see they're lunatics.

[feral chile]

Sorry to jump in with only reading the first and last couple of pages, this point has probably been raised (hopefully not by Barry ) But looking at the point above about the washing breaking, then surely regardless of benefit claimant or employed, if money is tight then that will be a problem.

Surely the point of benefits is to keep people to a basic left of living until they can get back on the employment ladder. Isn't the problem that benefits are at a level where it isn't worth going back to work as better off claiming? I'm not saying the actual amount is right or wrong, but the comparative should be there.

I don't wan't people in a position where they can't afford to eat, etc - but there needs to be some sort of incentive to work so that people. (Appreciate there's a whole minimum wage level agruement that can spark out of this).

[feral chile]

http://www.psycholog...d-things-happen

Argues that we're more likely to choose inaction to benefit from someone else's misfortune, because other people won't judge us so harshly.

So, I wouldn't go into my neighbour's house and steal his benefits for myself, but I'm quite happy to let the government do my dirty work for me, because I won't get any peer pressure hassle.

Edited March 9, 2012 by feral chile

[kaosmark2]

Fact is I got into my game because I knew it was highly rewarded, I don't actually like my job. If the world changed and other jobs where given higher rewards I would of aimed at doing those jobs as a kid or retrain as an adult to do those jobs.

I like to believe I can do anything I put my mind to.

[feral chile]

If we changed our whole economic modal.. Change which jobs pay well and which don't...

Do you think the people who are currently successful at what they do (at least in take home pay) will be the ones who are successful in the new world order...

Fact is I got into my game because I knew it was highly rewarded, I don't actually like my job. If the world changed and other jobs where given higher rewards I would of aimed at doing those jobs as a kid or retrain as an adult to do those jobs. I like to believe I can do anything I put my mind to.

The building blocks for success won't change if you picked at the structures we all work under. You will still have your losers and winner just like we have today. No workable system stops this as the entire history of the planet shows.

[eFestivals]

If we changed our whole economic modal.. Change which jobs pay well and which don't...

Do you think the people who are currently successful at what they do (at least in take home pay) will be the ones who are successful in the new world order...

Fact is I got into my game because I knew it was highly rewarded, I don't actually like my job. If the world changed and other jobs where given higher rewards I would of aimed at doing those jobs as a kid or retrain as an adult to do those jobs.

What I've said is much more than your very narrow mind is able to comprehend.

I like to believe I can do anything I put my mind to.

and yet you proved beyond all doubt the other day that you can't even do the most basic of economics.

The building blocks for success won't change if you picked at the structures we all work under. You will still have your losers and winner just like we have today. No workable system stops this as the entire history of the planet shows.

Yes, you will still have winners and losers.

What will not be the same is how much people win or lose by.

[feral chile]

That's really depressing.

Understand simple financial principles?

[eFestivals]

You still have a tired world.

Yep. But a less exploitative tiered world.

[kaosmark2]

Why

More than you ever will

[feral chile]

I haven't a problem in principle with that...

The thing is though if you used to pay like this (don't concentrate on numbers too much, it is just to make a point):

High : £1m

Low : £13k

Benefit : £13k

and you change to this:

High : £50k

Low : £25k

Benefit : £25k

You still have a tired world. The housing market would adjust to suit, cost of goods etc etc... The benefit claiming persons lot in life is pretty much the same as it is today.

You would have to move to:

Everyone: £25k

and then move to some sort of world like in Star Trek where you do jobs for the love of working etc and so on...

Edited March 9, 2012 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Even Neil says its unrealistic people will stop being twats and implemented his socialist utopia...

So while what you say is correct you can't ignore the realities of the world...

what is unrealistic but an unchangeable reality of the world is just how stupid you are.

[eFestivals]

So the end goal is to make it just a little bit less shit... but still shit regardless...

That is a LOT of effort to make it a little bit less shit

but still better than a lot of effort to make things more shit, which is what this benefit cap you support(ed?) does. Edited March 9, 2012 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

It has always worried and depressed me people who actually enjoy their jobs. Excluding people who do things like nursing, teaching, fire service etc... The caring of people is something a bit different than the normal job out there. If you are just working in a loans company, taking loans applications... or in Tesco stacking shelves... or making software... Its not the sort of stuff I call "enjoyable"...

The take away I am going to have tonight with my wife is enjoyable... The swimming lesson with my daughter on Saturday morning is enjoyable...

But hey, horses for courses...

[kaosmark2]

It has always worried and depressed me people who actually enjoy their jobs. Excluding people who do things like nursing, teaching, fire service etc... The caring of people is something a bit different than the normal job out there. If you are just working in a loans company, taking loans applications... or in Tesco stacking shelves... or making software... Its not the sort of stuff I call "enjoyable"...

The take away I am going to have tonight with my wife is enjoyable... The swimming lesson with my daughter on Saturday morning is enjoyable...

But hey, horses for courses...