Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Labour and lib dems completely out of touch with welfare. Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I don't suppose anyone watched question time last night?

    The welfare cap of £500 a week for those claiming benefits was discussed.

    From what I can see, this is excellent by the Tories and actually a bit generous. However then you've got the liberal dogooders winging about it and saying how house prices will be affected.

    There were two people on that panel last night who got it spot on. Michael Howard, and the daily mail columnist.

    At the end of the day, if you get £500 a week benefits that's about £2000 a month. I can assure you now that that is more than I get a month... If you earn that a month you haven't got a god given right to have a fantastic house with fantastic things inside, you don't. I certainly don't.

    A woman got it spot on in the audience. One rule for workers, one rule for benefit claimants. Here's the deal. If I earn £450 a week doing my job and I can't afford the rent, I move. Simple.

    Labour and the lib dems really want to get in the real world with this. It's a Eutopian world where everyone isn't greedy, and where people can afford what they want. Life isn't a bed of roses..

    Also, the lib dem woman might be the most annoying mp I think I've ever watched.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    With the conservatives on this.

    Caroline Flint is looking rough. A shame.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pandabär)
    I think most claimants would be way under the £500 a week threshold, though. That would be £24,000 a year, and I only get £20,000 by working 37.5 hours a week.

    £500 must be the ultimate maximum, otherwise why would people bother working if you could earn more by sitting at home?
    The problem is, nobody seems to say who these people are who get £24 000 a year. Who are they? Are they people with large families? Are they people living in very expensive areas of London? Are they working? Do they refuse to work?

    I have no idea. It certainly seems like a good way to deter large families though, which is all to the good. The question is how many children will suffer short term hardship and long term disadvantages because of this. Need to see statistics. I have seen none.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The Benefit Cap does not affect households who claim Disability Benefits or claim Working Tax Credit. I actually think that the cap is quite reasonable and I think it will work fine for most of the country. However, I can see some people who live inside the M25 having a problem with this cap due to the cost of rent. However, like the OP has said, if you can't afford where you live, move.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pandabär)
    That's not what I said. The £500 per week is for an individual. If you have children to support, then obviously you get extra. Kids are expensive.
    Jobseeker's allowance, income support, child and housing benefit count towards it, but not Disability Living Allowance.

    This applies to couples and single parents.

    The limit is £350 for individuals.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Almost nobody earns £26,000 in benefits though. Those cases you hear about in the Mail are mostly like where the family has been in an emergency B&B for a week in a London postcode extrapolated out to what it would cost per year.

    We need to give money to the underclass because otherwise they'll start stealing other people's stuff. Structural unemployment, as it's called, is a necessary flip side to a knowledge economy, because when we did manufacturing your manual labour had a fixed value, as everyone is born with more or less the same physical strength. However, in the knowledge economy, it's all about technical expertise. You can cram a lot of technical expertise into one head and unlike manual labour some people just haven't got the brains for it. This means companies can just sack people in bad times and pile more responsibilites into the remaining workers' brains because there is an astronomically high limit. And it means there will always be a significant percentage out of work.

    Benefits are not the government being "generous" or "civilised". They are a bribe to stop unemployable people running riot and causing a crime wave. And in our country they are much too stingy.

    The political parties whine forever on about how "work doesn't pay" and it's more lucrative to live on benefits. Of course, their solution is not to raise the minimum wage to the civilised levels of our European neighbours, but to cut the benefits further. To put it in perspective, after tax, minimum wage in this country is about equivalent to the lowest possible French dole (though the French dole is restricted to two years, which probably saves money overall as well as not plunging the claimant instantly into destitution and misery like we do).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I totally agree, if you're living at a cost to the tax-payer then you shouldn't get to live wherever you want at a higher cost to the tax payer, you shouldn't be expecting luxuries or extras. You damn well get on with it and if you want more money, get a bloody job!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would prefer a cap of £0.

    I'd like to see the welfare state completely dismantled, including the NHS.

    Regardless of circumstances, it is not right that one has the ability to steal, through the state, from others for their own benefit. There is no moral difference from holding a gun to someone's head and mugging them or using the state to accomplish the same end result; self-enrichment through force.

    Mere misfortune is not a claim to slave labour.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I would prefer a cap of £0.

    I'd like to see the welfare state completely dismantled, including the NHS.

    Regardless of circumstances, it is not right that one has the ability to steal, through the state, from others for their own benefit. There is no moral difference from holding a gun to someone's head and mugging them or using the state to accomplish the same end result; self-enrichment through force.

    Mere misfortune is not a claim to slave labour.
    So you have never used the NHS? Did you're parents claim Child Benefit for you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CelticSymphony67)
    So you have never used the NHS? Did you're parents claim Child Benefit for you?
    I've never used the NHS, and no.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I've never used the NHS, and no.
    Might I inquire as to how you were born?

    Or where you got your vaccinations from?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I've never used the NHS, and no.
    So you've never used any form of medication at all ever?

    Because if you have you've used an NHS service because virtually every drug made and used in england is atleast partially fund by government grants through the NHS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rooster523)
    Might I inquire as to how you were born?

    Or where you got your vaccinations from?
    I was born at Portland Hospital in London.

    As to vaccinations, I don't believe I've had any - and I seem to be quite alright.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I've never used the NHS, and no.
    Where were you born? Have you received no vaccinations? Did you ever need any form of medication growing up? Have you ever seen a doctor? Unless your family are millionaires, then I can't believe they did not claim Child Benefit for you. If your a millionaire family, then you must just believe that the poor should be left to wallow in filth? Even David Cameron has used the NHS and claimed benefits. His son who passed on received DLA. One more point, if you have not had any vaccinations, is that not a bit selfish of your parents? To you, and to other people who could get disease off you?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I was born at Portland Hospital in London.

    As to vaccinations, I don't believe I've had any - and I seem to be quite alright.
    Enjoy your measles brah
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CelticSymphony67)
    Where were you born? Have you received no vaccinations? Did you ever need any form of medication growing up? Have you ever seen a doctor? Unless your family are millionaires, then I can't believe they did not claim Child Benefit for you. If your a millionaire family, then you must just believe that the poor should be left to wallow in filth? Even David Cameron has used the NHS and claimed benefits. His son who passed on received DLA. One more point, if you have not had any vaccinations, is that not a bit selfish of your parents? To you, and to other people who could get disease off you?
    See above for some of your points.

    No, I never needed medication whilst growing up.
    I haven't ever needed to see a doctor, no.

    My parents are not millionaires - but they are comfortably off.

    I don't think it is the obligation of people that have money to pay for things that those who don't have it want. If they want to, as an act of voluntary charity, that is their choice - but nobody should be forced to do so through the tax system.

    I've never been seriously ill (the worst illness I've ever had was the rather mild swine flu during the pandemic a few years ago, which come and went in a few days) in my life, so I don't think there's any problem in me not having had vaccinations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rooster523)
    Enjoy your measles brah
    Haven't had them in the last twenty years.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I've never used the NHS, and no.
    Is this a bit like when you said the most embarrassing thing you'd ever experienced was getting a B, when actually we could look back at your posts and see that you got numerous Cs and Ds in your GCSEs?

    In other words, a lie.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    Also, the lib dem woman might be the most annoying mp I think I've ever watched.
    The government tend to put Sarah Teather on QT when they need someone who can feign ignorance at their policies and let the big players (Iain Duncan Smith, Theresa May etc) lie low for a bit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Is this a bit like when you said the most embarrassing thing you'd ever experienced was getting a B, when actually we could look back at your posts and see that you got numerous Cs and Ds in your GCSEs?

    In other words, a lie.
    You've heard of a 'joke' before, right?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.