Welfare reform bill.

[Digit]

Which was why the Lords wouldn't back a cap on child benefit, on the large house scenarion, I'm not so sure, as I have suggested earlier.
Jacob pointed out, sarcasticly, but correctly, it's all about money, thus I suggest that landlord faced with the alternatives of a reduced sum from the DSS or an empty property will in most cases choose the former. Wouldn't you?

Roy.

 

[studders]

But we all know that this is total pineapples. Why are you bothering to post such nonsense? Do you get some sort of kick out of it? A bit weird IMHO. :shock: Is it something to do with young women having babies which gets you going?

Oo..er ........ Can't take what you dish out then :lol: :lol: :lol: indicitive of those who like to stir the pot but don't like it back

Yup.

I do consider it to be innacurate. However purely for the sake of Jacobs "entertainment"...............

Obviously missed(ignored) this bit.

And, it is not complete 'pineapple'. I know of a young(ish) woman whose marriage lasted five minutes and she was left to look after a young kid. As far as I know she has never worked, mainly because she never needed to, parents quite well off and husband(ex) had a good job in the city.
To cut a long story short, a family friend approached her and told her he owned a house that he wanted to rent out, offered it to her and told her how she could get the Benefits Agency to pay the bill. To my dismay they did, despite the fact that Daddy was 'looking after' a not inconsiderable amount of money 'on her behalf'.

 

[devonwoody]

There is a good side to these benefit payments, it creates more GDP. :mrgreen:

(which I suspect the chancellor looks on as a plus)

 

[Jacob]

There is a good side to these benefit payments, it creates more GDP. :mrgreen:

(which I suspect the chancellor looks on as a plus)

Well yes. The whole cuts thing is a nonsense. As it takes money out of the economy other businesses and services suffer, leading to unemployment etc and the whole situation gets worse.
In the meantime bankers, directors, tax dodgers, are creaming off their millions whilst the going is still good.
They are the real problem, not pathetic feckless families of ne'er-do-wells. It's the financial system which has failed and needs correcting.

 

[Digit]

As it takes money out of the economy other businesses and services suffer,

That is a daft assumption! You are assuming that if you were not contributing to the benefits via your various tax payments that you would be putting it under your mattress, as opposed to using it to purchse items from such people as yourself who manufacture things.
Cars, houses etc etc blah blah blah!!!!
At the moment a massive amount of money is being removed from the economy by being used to pay interest on the loans that are having to be paid, stop the cuts and you would have to borrow more, more interest, more money removed from economy.
The larger your overdraft Jacob the less you have to circulate.

Roy.

 

[devonwoody]

Just think, without high social security benefits, GDP might have been MINUS 10% or whatever! :wink:

Your pound would be around 50p to the Euro.

Perhaps we ought to fiddle the figures like Euroland.

 

[Jacob]

Bin good to hear the odd bishop speaking up against the "reforms".
Easy to forget but it's their job; looking after the poor (and feeble minded, feckless, stupid etc) was top of the christian agenda.

 

[Digit]

feckless,

Not in my Bible it isn't, show me where Christianity supports idleness.

Roy.

 

[devonwoody]

Jacob, bishops would not want to support those welfare reforms, their congregations would not have so much spare dosh to donate to their priests would they? :wink:

 

[Lons]

What's christianity got do do with it when a sizeable % of the population are not of the christian faith. Human decency might perhaps have been a better choice.

I'm not religious so maybe that explains why I'm one of the many who agree that benefits should be capped and family allowance included in the calculations. (I believe that family allowance should be scrapped anyway as it's awarded whether needed or not).

 

[flanajb]

Yep. Using the argument that the Children will suffer is flawed. Of course the Children will suffer if welfare including child benefit is capped. But that is life. I only had one Child as I know how expensive they are to bring up, and I would never dream of expecting the state to support my Children.

But as others don't think in the same way and will always use the excuse 'my Children will suffer' then unfortunately you have to adopt a hard line approach

 

[Jacob]

What a dismal post to read first thing in the morning. What's wrong with you lot - so desperate to make those at the bottom suffer even more?
Get a life! Pull yourselves together! Go and have a lie down or something. Try to enjoy yourself a bit more.

 

[chipmunk]

Unfortunately as a society I fear with these views prevailing we're destined to regress to one where the gap between rich and poor grows and malnutrition returns to the majority of our children.

...and before anyone brings religion into it, I'm a confirmed atheist.

Jon

 

[flanajb]

Unfortunately as a society I fear with these views prevailing we're destined to regress to one where the gap between rich and poor grows and malnutrition returns to the majority of our children.

...and before anyone brings religion into it, I'm a confirmed atheist.

Jon

If people took responsibilty for their actions and didn't expect the state to support them it would all be fine. Years ago, being on Welfare was something that you would be ashamed of and was a last resort. Now days people take the view "No need to worry about providing for myself or the kids as the state will pick up the tab"

 

[Jacob]

Unfortunately as a society I fear with these views prevailing we're destined to regress to one where the gap between rich and poor grows and malnutrition returns to the majority of our children.

And they are slowly running down state education, partly through sheer propaganda - running it down as "failing" etc and also through financial cuts which will cause it to fail.

...and before anyone brings religion into it, I'm a confirmed atheist.

Jon

Me too, but I'm happy to commend the bishops for doing their job i.e. looking after the poor.

 

[chipmunk]

If people took responsibilty for their actions and didn't expect the state to support them it would all be fine. Years ago, being on Welfare was something that you would be ashamed of and was a last resort. Now days people take the view "No need to worry about providing for myself or the kids as the state will pick up the tab"

I think you may have a point but you can't set up a welfare system that rewards the unemployed having kids and then change direction on a sixpence without having an impact on those children.

The way to do it is to change the rules for future parents and desuade them from having children they can't afford in the first place. That would be a more thoughtful and moral way to deal with it but it wouldn't appease the "make 'em suffer" brigade.

Jon

 

[Digit]

looking after the poor.

Strange how Jacob has suddenly become a supporter of the wealthiest, largest land owning group in the country. And BTW, not all the Bishops are agin the cap.
I would also point out that the starting pay for a cleric is reported as being £22000/annum, with many on benefits to help, well done C of E!
Wonder what happened to charity begins at home Bish?
Anyway Jacob, just so I know we are all singing from the hymn sheet, how would you define 'poor?'
I also like this idea of the Church looking after the poor, by using someone elses money? Yeah! That's what I call charity! :lol:

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

......
I also like this idea of the Church looking after the poor, .......
Roy.

Well yes it's fundamental to most religions, but easily forgotten.
I'm not religious in any way BTW - just in case anybody thinks I've seen the light!

 

[Digit]

Fundamental to most religions? Yep! By such methods as donations, the Imams and Rabbis are noticably not asking for people to be taxed to do it, so why are the Bishops of the largest and weathiest religious group in the country expecting the tax payer to do it when they don't even pay their clergy a decent salary?
Back in 2004 the AB of York had a salary in excess of £60000/annum and lived in the Bishes palace, there seems to be some hypocrisy there to me.
But again Jacob, no answer to some of my questions, such as how do you define 'poor?'

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

I suggest you have a look yourself for the meaning of "poor". It's not a new concept and has been written about extensively.
Don't be lazy - start with the dictionary.